MacRumors forum civility has gone downhill

[SuperMatt]

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".

Check out @ericgtr12 ’s signature for the answer.

 

[Apple_Robert]

In theory, it works that way. In reality, this isn’t what happens. I could give the details, but that would be against the rules.

It does happen that way. Like I said, the outcome may not to be any of our liking at times but, overall, the staff does a good job.

 

[icanhazmac]

Check out @ericgtr12 ’s signature for the answer.

Tell that to @AutomaticApple , I'm happy here. Even though, as stated previously, I too have had issues with mod decisions in the end I am on their site. Their site = their rules. I either adjust my expectations or move on to "friendlier" pastures.

 

[SuperMatt]

It does happen that way. Like I said, the outcome may not to be any of our liking at times but, overall, the staff does a good job.

No, it does not in my experience. I believe I am much more qualified on the topic of what I experienced than you. Maybe it happens like that sometimes for some people. But I can guarantee you it doesn’t happen like that every time.

 

[Apple_Robert]

No, it does not in my experience. I believe I am much more qualified on the topic of what I experienced than you. Maybe it happens like that sometimes for some people. But I can guarantee you it doesn’t happen like that every time.

We will agree to disagree on this particular point.

 

[SuperMatt]

We will agree to disagree on this particular point.

The rules are not black and white. Not every moderation action or discussion follows the pattern exactly. Unless you’ve seen every forum member’s correspondence with the moderators, you aren’t qualified to make such a statement. I will not agree to disagree on this point. I will say it’s impossible for you to know what you claim to know. It’s one thing to point out that “standard procedure.” It’s another thing to insist that the SOP is followed 100% of the time.

 

[icanhazmac]

Are you privy to my private correspondence with the moderators?

Don't need to be, we are all painfully aware that you do not get your way as much as you would like with the mods.

 

[bousozoku]

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.

I joined around then, and I worked the IRC channel before becoming a moderator. It wasn't truly horrible until the iPhone users arrived. It's settled quite a lot since then. I lost my patience quite a bit trying to deal with people who wanted to rant.

 

[SuperMatt]

Don't need to be, we are all painfully aware that you do not get your way as much as you would like with the mods.

Just seems a bit odd that @Apple_Robert seems to know more about another person’s experiences than they do. Not sure how this post has anything to do with what I was saying. Just pointing out that @Apple_Robert ’s assessment of what happens in the moderation process isn’t 100% accurate all the time.

 

[ericgtr12]

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.

Have you ever been asked to mod here? Just curious.

 

[ipponrg]

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?

Whether it's authoritarian or not, I do not think it matters in the end. It's clear that some are on a crusade to improve the moderation on their own terms. If you dislike the way it's moderated that much and it still doesn't change, that seems pretty clear to me what results your efforts will be.

Believe me when I say, I've had my disagreements with the moderators about their logic. When I get triggered about the way something is moderated, I have to remind myself over and over to let it go because it will almost always be censored. I do like the content on this forum enough such that I'll just put up with it.

 

[AutomaticApple]

In whose opinion? Yours? Your opinion (or mine, or any other members) doesn't matter it isn't your site.

That defeats the point of the SFF category.

If they do something that's ethically/morally wrong, does that not matter? If they didn't follow rules/guidelines, does that not matter?

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.

Theoretically, doesn't that leave the door wide open for corruption? I'm not suggesting that's the case, but still...

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.

If I believe there's something wrong going on, what prevents me from questioning it? This is a public forum where anybody can be put under scrutiny. Some people don't just give up when they don't get what they want.

Nobody is flawless.

For example, why do people feel entitled to protest private decisions by governmental entities?

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.

I'll believe it when I see it.

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.

There must be serious issues going on then.

In theory, it works that way. In reality, this isn’t what happens. I could give the details, but that would be against the rules.

Yes, exactly. There's no optimal solution when the rules cannot be challenged.

 

[SuperMatt]

Whether it's authoritarian or not, I do not think it matters in the end. It's clear that some are on a crusade to improve the moderation on their own terms. If you dislike the way it's moderated that much and it still doesn't change, that seems pretty clear to me what results your efforts will be.

Believe me when I say, I've had my disagreements with the moderators about their logic. When I get triggered about the way something is moderated, I have to remind myself over and over to let it go because it will almost always be censored. I do like the content on this forum enough such that I'll just put up with it.

You are probably right on letting things go. Concerns about racism and misogyny have been raised many times in SFF, and yet numerous posts with such content (IMHO) are still on this forum right now. That indicates I’m probably barking up a dead tree. Thanks.

 

[AutomaticApple]

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.

It allows for questionable uneven decisions that aren't on a level playing field.

Check out @ericgtr12 ’s signature for the answer.

If it cannot be challenged here, it can be challenged elsewhere. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

It does happen that way. Like I said, the outcome may not to be any of our liking at times but, overall, the staff does a good job.

Is nobody allowed to suggest otherwise? Are people only allowed to say good things?

Tell that to @AutomaticApple , I'm happy here. Even though, as stated previously, I too have had issues with mod decisions in the end I am on their site. Their site = their rules. I either adjust my expectations or move on to "friendlier" pastures.

He doesn't need to tell me that. I found out about it myself a long time ago.

No, it does not in my experience. I believe I am much more qualified on the topic of what I experienced than you. Maybe it happens like that sometimes for some people. But I can guarantee you it doesn’t happen like that every time.

Are you suggesting that nobody is treated equally? 🤔

We will agree to disagree on this particular point.

And you just want to leave it at that?

Are you privy to my private correspondence with the moderators?

Or are you just indicating that you think I’m lying?

The rules are not black and white. Not every moderation action or discussion follows the pattern exactly. Unless you’ve seen every forum member’s correspondence with the moderators, you aren’t qualified to make such a statement. I will not agree to disagree on this point. I will say it’s impossible for you to know what you claim to know. It’s one thing to point out that “standard procedure.” It’s another thing to imply that somebody is lying when they point out the “standard procedure” isn’t the case every single time.

Something is very much wrong. Possibly in more ways than one...

Don't need to be, we are all painfully aware that you do not get your way as much as you would like with the mods.

Well, is it the right way? Is it fair or justified?

I joined around then, and I worked the IRC channel before becoming a moderator. It wasn't truly horrible until the iPhone users arrived. It's settled quite a lot since then. I lost my patience quite a bit trying to deal with people who wanted to rant.

I wasn't around during those days. I question if it'll ever settle unless something major actually happens.

Just seems a bit odd that @Apple_Robert seems to know more about another person’s experiences than they do. Not sure how this post has anything to do with what I was saying. Just pointing out that @Apple_Robert ’s assessment of what happens in the moderation process isn’t 100% accurate all the time.

It's only 100% accurate when you believe so. What's the truth though?

Have you ever been asked to mod here? Just curious.

I'm sure he would be a great moderator if he's faithful enough towards everything that goes on inside MacRumors.

Whether it's authoritarian or not, I do not think it matters in the end. It's clear that some are on a crusade to improve the moderation on their own terms. If you dislike the way it's moderated that much and it still doesn't change, that seems pretty clear to me what results your efforts will be.

Believe me when I say, I've had my disagreements with the moderators about their logic. When I get triggered about the way something is moderated, I have to remind myself over and over to let it go because it will almost always be censored. I do like the content on this forum enough such that I'll just put up with it.

If there's something wrong going on, are we supposed to just put up with it and let it continue to happen?

You shouldn't let a fire spread. Even if you're not a firefighter and the fire was started by the firefighters in the first place, the best thing to do is put it out with water. Giving up is the worst option.

You are probably right on letting things go. Concerns about racism and misogyny have been raised many times in SFF, and yet numerous posts with such content (IMHO) are still on this forum right now. That indicates I’m probably barking up a dead tree. Thanks.

If we see racism and misogyny, are we supposed to just sit back and watch it happen? If it's evil, why let go? For whatever it takes, it should be stopped dead in its tracks once and for all. Again, giving up is the worst option.

 

[I7guy]

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.

I believe there could be other factors at play, based on the other posters moderation history. Additionally it could be the way in which something was said, instead of some trigger word that would automatically result in moderation.

[...]

There must be serious issues going on then.

[...]

Don't understand what you mean because that's a leap to say there are serious issues going on. My own feeling is to work within the system rather than trying to burn the system down.

 

[icanhazmac]

If they do something that's ethically/morally wrong, does that not matter? If they didn't follow rules/guidelines, does that not matter?

Ethically/morally wrong in whose opinion? See the thing is they own the site, they make the rules, they apply those rules in the best way they see fit. If you don't like it you can suggest change, within the boundaries of the posted rules. If you continue to be denied you are welcome to start your own tech site and forum.

Theoretically, doesn't that leave the door wide open for corruption? I'm not suggesting that's the case, but still...

Corruption? Wow, drama much? In what possible way could the mod/mod team, that answers to ownership/management be corrupt?

If I believe there's something wrong going on, what prevents me from questioning it? This is a public forum where anybody can be put under scrutiny. Some people don't just give up when they don't get what they want.

Nobody is flawless.

For example, why do people feel entitled to protest private decisions by governmental entities?

You are able to question things here, within the boundaries of the posted rules.

Yes, exactly. There's no optimal solution when the rules cannot be challenged.

You are able to challenge the rules, within the boundaries of the posted rules.

 

[AutomaticApple]

I believe there could be other factors at play, based on the other posters moderation history. Additionally it could be the way in which something was said, instead of some trigger word that would automatically result in moderation.

Don't understand what you mean because that's a leap to say there are serious issues going on.

It's also a leap to suggest that there aren't serious issues going on. Stick to defense if you want, but I stand by everything I've said on the offense side.

Ethically/morally wrong in whose opinion? See the thing is they own the site, they make the rules, they apply those rules in the best way they see fit. If you don't like it you can suggest change, within the boundaries of the posted rules. If you continue to be denied you are welcome to start your own tech site and forum.



Corruption? Wow, drama much? In what possible way could the mod/mod team, that answers to ownership/management be corrupt?



You are able to question things here, within the boundaries of the posted rules.



You are able to challenge the rules, within the boundaries of the posted rules.

I never suggested that corruption was an issue here. I'm just throwing it out there because some people act like every single inch of the internet is perfect in every single way. Nobody can do whatever they want without being scrutinized. Some people aren't willing to play it safe anymore and act like everything is flawlessly perfect.

The "posted rules" prevent people from questioning wrongdoing. People cannot just be expected to blindly follow without educating themselves beforehand. Stones cannot be left unturned. Whatever goes on behind the scenes, it shouldn't come without questioning from the public.

 

[SuperMatt]

I believe there could be other factors at play, based on the other posters moderation history. Additionally it could be the way in which something was said, instead of some trigger word that would automatically result in moderation.

The posting history thing is admittedly part of the mod decision process. To me, this is concerning, because let’s say somebody’s posting history includes criticisms of the moderation process and/or decisions. 😲

And “the way in which something was said” is vastly overused in moderation decisions, IMHO. Polite racism and misogyny could be allowed with this focus, but a rude response to a racist could get one banned. The south was known for its politeness during Jim Crow. But they were extremely cruel to black people. If the moderators decide to shift their focus from snide comments, bad jokes, and perceived insults to more serious issues, I think the forums would be a better place.

 

[AutomaticApple]

The posting history thing is admittedly part of the mod decision process. To me, this is concerning, because let’s say somebody’s posting history includes criticisms of the moderation process and/or decisions.

And “the way in which something was said” is vastly overused in moderation decisions, IMHO. Polite racism and misogyny are allowed here, but a rude response to a racist gets one banned. The south was known for its politeness during Jim Crow. But they were extremely cruel to black people. If the moderators decide to shift their focus from snide comments, bad jokes, and perceived insults to more serious issues, I think the forums would be a better place.

Nothing about the moderation process or other inside matters can be criticized? That's very much a controlled environment that allows for anything that isn't the truth or blatant deception.

 

[SuperMatt]

Nothing about the moderation process or other inside matters can be criticized? That's very much a controlled environment that allows for anything that isn't the truth or blatant deception.

I agree that it is very hard to have a public discussion about moderation when one is unable to bring up examples.

I had a couple posts removed because I linked to NON-moderated posts as examples of what the moderators ALLOW here. As I read the rules, the prohibition on discussing moderation was for posts that had been edited or removed by the mods. It seems even non-moderated posts cannot be individually discussed here, apparently not even as examples of what is allowed and what isn’t.

A lack of transparency breeds distrust. I can see that private conversations about a mod‘s decision would be private, but why would the post itself be off-limits? It was made in a public forum by somebody who knew their post would be public AND subject to criticism and discussion.

 

[I7guy]

The posting history thing is admittedly part of the mod decision process. To me, this is concerning, because let’s say somebody’s posting history includes criticisms of the moderation process and/or decisions. 😲

As I understand it, it's not the posting history, but the moderation history. Do you believe the staff keeps a record book on who criticizes them? (which is implied or said directly in the above as I interpret it)

And “the way in which something was said” is vastly overused in moderation decisions,

I don't agree with the above. Calling someone an "effin idiot" because you don't agree with their posts is quite different than replying "I don't agree and here's why".

IMHO. Polite racism and misogyny are allowed here, but a rude response to a racist gets one banned. The south was known for its politeness during Jim Crow. But they were extremely cruel to black people. If the moderators decide to shift their focus from snide comments, bad jokes, and perceived insults to more serious issues, I think the forums would be a better place.

I don't understand the concept of polite racism and polite misogyny. I know some examples were floated previously in this thread. But there is no rule against insults of public people. Whether that includes derogatory terms I don't know (but that brings up who considers what derogatory)

Nothing about the moderation process or other inside matters can be criticized? That's very much a controlled environment that allows for anything that isn't the truth or blatant deception.

Your posts questioning / criticizing some of the operational procedures are still here. That should tell you something.

 

[ericgtr12]

Tell that to @AutomaticApple , I'm happy here. Even though, as stated previously, I too have had issues with mod decisions in the end I am on their site. Their site = their rules. I either adjust my expectations or move on to "friendlier" pastures.

An area we agree on. One thing I'll say about staff is for the most part they'll let you air your grievances in this forum so gotta give credit where it's due. PRSI has become far too toxic for me so I've moved on and rarely ever post in there anymore, I don't like the way it's run so I've moved on, in the end it's my call and I can't put that on them.

 

[AutomaticApple]

I agree that it is very hard to have a public discussion about moderation when one is unable to bring up examples.

I had a couple posts removed because I linked to NON-moderated posts as examples of what the moderators ALLOW here. As I read the rules, the prohibition on discussing moderation was for posts that had been edited or removed by the mods. It seems even non-moderated posts cannot be individually discussed here, apparently not even as examples of what is allowed and what isn’t.

A lack of transparency breeds distrust. I can see that private conversations about a mod‘s decision would be private, but why would the post itself be off-limits? It was made in a public forum by somebody who knew their post would be public AND subject to criticism and discussion.

Yeah, there's not enough transparency. It's very much breeding distrust.

Your posts questioning / criticizing some of the operational procedures are still here. That should tell you something.

I'm being very light right now. I haven't specifically been criticizing MacRumors.

 

[ipponrg]

If there's something wrong going on, are we supposed to just put up with it and let it continue to happen?

You shouldn't let a fire spread. Even if you're not a firefighter and the fire was started by the firefighters in the first place, the best thing to do is put it out with water. Giving up is the worst option.

I think you value time on this forum differently than people like myself. This is a leisure forum for me, and the outcome with/without change has no impact outside these forums. So the short answer is “yes”, you just put up with it and continue on.

I wouldn’t say I am giving up. I see it more as I am prioritizing time/emotions on other items.

 

[I7guy]

Yeah, there's not enough transparency. It's very much breeding distrust.

I'm being very light right now. I haven't specifically been criticizing MacRumors.

First, kudos to the staff for allowing these types of discussions to take place, in general terms. They have shown they are receptive to feedback and in the past have made updates to the policies based on feedback.

There have been multiple threads discussing moderation policies, such as those brought up in this thread. Whether ultimately there are still additional changes based on some of this feedback, yet remains to be seen. One thing that seemingly will not come to pass is to open up the moderation decisions on a general basis to this forum.

With this site having such a heterogeneous user base, I doubt there is a way to have moderation policies in effect whereby 100% of the members believes is appropriate. Someone will always believe they are/were disenfranchised.

The staff has repeatedly says they are not biased and still it seems that is not believed. If one feels this (total lack of transparency) breeds mistrust, one should look closely at their own parameters of participation.