MacRumors forum civility has gone downhill

[icanhazmac]

The rules are a wee bit funny. Calling a poster a hypocrite to their face would constitute a personal attack, and some sensitive posters would surely designate it as “hate speech” and uncivil.

It has been suggested that I should just accept the hateful speech directed at me (elsewhere) as the consequences of my actions, another way to say that would be "if the shoe fits". Personally all I feel I have done here is engage in a conversation about the overall moderation at MR so no, I don't think I deserve it.

However, when some members here claim to be more civil, more moral etc. to be exposed as being vulgar, crass and hateful then I would say "if the shoe fits".

Based on what I’ve seen in this thread my takeaway is that there are two opposing sides mostly. The first is sensitive about words while the second is sensitive about content. The second would like to be able to address for example racist and misogynic content posted, but calling out content as such is often treated as calling out the poster instead.

No not really, I would classify it this way.

Group A: Claims MR is badly and inconsistently moderated and a haven for hate speech. (paraphrased)

Myself: I think MR is a great site and while I have scratched my head at a couple of mod choices over all I enjoy the site.

SFF: Is a place to discuss the Site and Forum and provide Feedback. When Group A posts their opinion, I post a couner argument. How is this any different from one member complaining they don't like the new iMac colors and another user saying they are great?

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Yes, I have suggested that, though I would say my opinion was a bit more nuanced than "just leave if you don't like it here". I have interacted with a couple of members here so seem to complain about the same things over and over and over again, even after appealing to the mod team they still complain. This suggests that they are being way more picky about moderation than MR is willing to be. All I suggested was that if this site is so poorly managed, so bad, so annoying to them why not find another Apple site to frequent. If I hated things here as much as some in this thread seem too I'd have left a long time ago. At some point you are beating a dead horse.

I am just as entitled to my opinion that MR is a great site that is about as well moderated as one could expect as other are to complain about it but for some reason I am villainized for verbalizing it?



Ok, again just so we understand each other, you support hateful speech against me because disagree with opinions? Got it.

I haven’t witnessed any hateful speech against you and don’t think any malice is intended. If you are upset by the comments then it’s probably best to contact the site owner and follow the guidelines there as I doubt Mac Rumours are concerned by discussion on a website unconnected to here. This thread is about the negativity and discourse here and that’s a very different thing.

People here don’t hate the website and it’s content but the way the rules are often unfairly enforced. It’s very frustrating to see yourself get a warning and then other posts more severe are left without action. When they are reported the answer is usually justified in a way that is more at the mods discretion rather than following the rule template. It’s so open and very difficult to learn from in my experience.

 

[icanhazmac]

The rules are a wee bit funny. Calling a poster a hypocrite to their face would constitute a personal attack, and some sensitive posters would surely designate it as “hate speech” and uncivil.

I'm not so sure about that, though MR may think differently. If I were going to pointedly address one person that way I would of course provide reference and citation. I might still get a vacation but c'est la vie.

Definition of HYPOCRITE

a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion; a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So the definition is pretty clear "a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue". One could say that certain members of this forum who claim to be more "civil" than the rest of us were just proven to be more vulgar, crass and hateful than they claimed so the description fits. Furthermore all the members liking the comments here telling me to just "take it" are complicit. Silence is violence as some say.

 

[icanhazmac]

I haven’t witnessed any hateful speech against you and don’t think any malice is intended.

Visit the other site, search on my name and come back here and honestly say that my counter arguements in this thread justify what is being said, that those comments are not hateful and that no malice is intended. If you can then we have wholly different ideas on hate speech, malice, etc.

It’s very frustrating to see yourself get a warning and then other posts more severe are left without action. When they are reported the answer is usually justified in a way that is more at the mods discretion rather than following the rule template. It’s so open and very difficult to learn from in my experience.

I KNOW! I have said several times that this has happened to me as well! I have also said multiple times that at one point or another you just need to come to peace with "I am on their site, I need to live by their rules". Sometimes the world is not perfect or fair. If you cannot come to terms with this maybe you want to find a home that better suits your sensibilities? This is one of the reasons I filter PRSI, I'm not here to engage in politics, if I do the chances I get a vacation go up, so I eliminate that chance.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I'm not so sure about that, though MR may think differently. If I were going to pointedly address one person that way I would of course provide reference and citation. I might still get a vacation but c'est la vie.

Definition of HYPOCRITE

a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion; a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So the definition is pretty clear "a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue". One could say that certain members of this forum who claim to be more "civil" than the rest of us were just proven to be more vulgar, crass and hateful than they claimed so the description fits. Furthermore all the members liking the comments here telling me to just "take it" are complicit. Silence is violence as some say.

I was once told by the mods here that calling someone a hypocrite, troll or ignorant, although completely true in essence, is a breach of the rules and an act of trolling as it attracts a negative reaction and de-rails a thread. Several of my own warnings have been less provocative than calling someone a hypocrite. I asked a poster ‘if they thought before they posted’ and that was enough to contribute to a ban so name calling is definitely worse whether a poster thinks it’s true or not.

 

[icanhazmac]

I was once told by the mods here that calling someone a hypocrite, troll or ignorant, although completely true in essence, is a breach of the rules and an act of trolling as it attracts a negative reaction and de-rails a thread. Several of my own warnings have been less provocative than calling someone a hypocrite. I asked a poster ‘if they thought before they posted’ and that was enough to contribute to a ban so name calling is definitely worse whether a poster thinks it’s true or not.

Thank you for that heads up.

Anyway, my point here is that some members claim to be a step above the rest and in reality they aren't. You would think one of them would stand up and say "you are right, simply offering another opinion did not warrant the treatment you received on our site". One would think that either myself or @Apple_Robert might have gotten such a comment but no, most of that group just upvote all the comments justifying the behavior. That's life. I have no desire to engage @ericgtr12 about the content allowed on his site, its his site but to claim you are more civil and against hateful speech (paraphrased) while allowing that content makes him complicit or makes him another word a wise member here recently been told not to use.

Edit: Another note... I'm not one of the "-ist" posters that this group is concerned about. Those people might be a better target for their digital wrath on the other site. All I have ever done is SFF is defend MR as a great place to virtually hang.

 

[AlliFlowers]

I'm actually quite happy to have exposed some here as the hypocrites they are. Standing high on their soap boxes claiming moral and civil superiority while being just as crass, vulgar and insulting as those they claim to fight.

For all the hate I get I do not sling hateful, vulgar statements at those with a different opinion than mine. Instead of running off to a safe little echo chamber I choose to stay right here and try to have a civil conversation about it.

You seem to be under the [mistaken] impression that lifting the language filter equates to incivility. We are adults and many of us have a tendency to use 4 letter words when amongst other adults. That doesn’t mean the conversation is not civil.

It has been suggested that I should just accept the hateful speech directed at me (elsewhere) as the consequences of my actions, another way to say that would be "if the shoe fits". Personally all I feel I have done here is engage in a conversation about the overall moderation at MR so no, I don't think I deserve it.

You know you are more than welcome to visit the other place and hold a civil conversation (including 4 letter words should you so desire) rather than talking about the injustice here. It would make more sense.

 

[icanhazmac]

You seem to be under the [mistaken] impression that lifting the language filter equates to incivility.

If you really consider the discussions over there involving my name civil then we just have to agree to disagree. It is not the 4 letter words that are the problem, I use them often, it is the intent and the intent over there was clear.

You know you are more than welcome to visit the other place and hold a civil conversation (including 4 letter words should you so desire) rather than talking about the injustice here. It would make more sense.

Thank you for the offer but in the short time I was there it did not strike me as a very welcoming place. Especially when you read things like "war between forums" and "will we ever find out who XXXX user really is" and "maybe you can cross reference IPs", sounds like folks there want to doxx members here so no thanks. None of those things sound civil to me.

 

[I7guy]

I was once told by the mods here that calling someone a hypocrite, troll or ignorant, although completely true in essence, is a breach of the rules and an act of trolling as it attracts a negative reaction and de-rails a thread. Several of my own warnings have been less provocative than calling someone a hypocrite. I asked a poster ‘if they thought before they posted’ and that was enough to contribute to a ban so name calling is definitely worse whether a poster thinks it’s true or not.

In the past, I learned the hard way about this type of uncivil behavior. I may not agree with a poster, but I'm not going to issue a poke of any type. I'll just dive into the details and make my case.

As mild as you think the bolded is, it's still an insult of types (or so it seems to me).

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

In the past, I learned the hard way about this type of uncivil behavior. I may not agree with a poster, but I'm not going to issue a poke of any type. I'll just dive into the details and make my case.

As mild as you think the bolded is, it's still an insult of types (or so it seems to me).

I think this is why opinions on what one considers insulting and others do not, somehow create an atmosphere of discontent. The fact we have so many different cultures and nationalities here doesn’t help. I’ve learned I have to be very careful what I say here and it’s often best to vent elsewhere.

 

[I7guy]

I think this is why opinions on what one considers insulting and others do not, somehow create an atmosphere of discontent. The fact we have so many different cultures and nationalities here doesn’t help. I’ve learned I have to be very careful what I say here and it’s often best to vent elsewhere.

True, but I doubt most here would talk to their parents in the same vein and tone as what is seen here at MacRumors. (of course there are exceptions) But the internet has, imo, collectively dumbed down our sensitivity.

 

[theSeb]

Are the members of Group A the only ones entitled to an opinion about moderation at MR? Why don't I get to chime in?

Clearly nobody is stopping you from chiming in, since an unusually large percentage of your total posts is you chiming in with your opinions on moderation on this site and telling people what they should do if they do not like the moderation here. You are even chiming in right now, in fact.

I am not sure what that has to do with moderation and what people say about you on some other forum though.

 

[ericgtr12]

True, but I doubt most here would talk to their parents in the same vein and tone as what is seen here at MacRumors. (of course there are exceptions) But the internet has, imo, collectively dumbed down our sensitivity.

^ Could not agree more with this, as a whole on the internet we act differently than if we were to ever meet in person.

 

[icanhazmac]

since an unusually large percentage of your total posts is you chiming in with your opinions on moderation on this site

Post count here has been brought up before, perhaps by you, conversations in SFF have resulted in much deeper conversations than in other areas of the forum, so post count is really irrelevant. Am I to ignore questions asked of me or conversations because it will cross an arbitrary percentage of my total posts? Example: should I have ignored your question because I would then have an "unusually large percentage" of posts here?

I am not sure what that has to do with moderation and what people say about you on some other forum though.

It speaks to the overall topic of civility, others here claim want to fight hate speech and to have a place where more civil conversations occur, I found that to be untrue, at least when/where certain members of MR are concerned.

 

[bpeeps]

\

Ok, again just so we understand each other, you support hateful speech against me because I disagree with opinions and present another side? Got it.

I think what many people are trying to tell you is it's just best to ignore things you don't like and move on. And you read that as "so you support hate speech against me". But there is zero correlation between the two statements. Sometimes the best response on the internet is no response. Otherwise you fuel the fire.

 

[pmiles]

^ Could not agree more with this, as a whole on the internet we act differently than if we were to ever meet in person.

The reality is, most people would never have met these people in real life, so the comparison is moot. It's like saying you would choose to go up to a bunch of people you know you don't like and strike up a conversation knowing the inevitable outcome.

Because "we" can't see the people we are responding to, we invariably walk into a hornets nest.

It goes both ways in that neither side truly knows the mindset of the other, they can only assume based on what is written... and if taken out of context, all meaning is lost. We live in a world in which words often mean entirely different things to different people just by how it is said. If 2021 has proven anything, it's that nothing you say truly ever means what you think it means to anyone other than you.

 

[icanhazmac]

I think what many people are trying to tell you is it's just best to ignore things you don't like and move on.

That's the funniest thing I have read in this entire thread, thanks!

I wonder what the reaction would be if I had said that?

Before anyone says "YOU HAVE" I have not, what I have suggested is that if people find MR so offensive and so poorly moderated and even after their repeated attempts to enact change do not go their way then perhaps one should find a place that suits them better. I have never once said "ignore hateful/racist/sexist" posts and move on, what I have suggested is that maybe some peoples idea of what constitutes hateful/racist/sexist is outside the range of what an average group of people would. I have also encouraged people to try to enact the change they seek within the framework of the posted rules at MR... don't call other members racist, just report the post. If the results of the report are "no action required" then perhaps your definition of the infraction is outside the norm.

 

[SuperMatt]

Ok, again just so we understand each other, you support hateful speech against me because I disagree with opinions and present another side? Got it.

Different people have different opinions about what speech is hateful. The discussions in SFF are perfect examples of that. You previously stated:

Prior to blocking PRSI I saw this a bunch of times, a small group of very vocal SJW types take exception to something someone posts and when they can't get the post moderated or the other member canceled/suspended they start calling the other members or mods nazis, fascists, racists, etc. and then find themselves banned. Nothing makes me smile more than the PC police themselves getting banned.

It seems like you are taking very vocal exception to things said on another forum. You cannot get the posts moderated or the other site cancelled/suspended, so you are calling the people from the other site hypocrites,"vulgar, crass and hateful," accusing them of trying to dox you, etc.

if people find MR so offensive and so poorly moderated and even after their repeated attempts to enact change do not go their way then perhaps one should find a place that suits them better.

One might say the same about any other website.

 

[icanhazmac]

It seems like you are taking very vocal exception to things said on another forum. You cannot get the posts moderated or the other site cancelled/suspended, so you are calling the people from the other site hypocrites,"vulgar, crass and hateful," accusing them of trying to dox you, etc.

Yes, I am taking very vocal exception to things said about me on another forum but I have never asked for them to be moderated or any members of that forum to be cancelled or suspended from there or here for that matter. As a matter of fact I prefer for them to stay visible so that any visitors from here will see what some members of the other forum are truly like. A person is best judged by what the do/say when they think no one is looking.

I did indeed suggest that certain members of the other forum were vulgar, crass and hateful only because members posted inside this thread suggesting that the other forum was more civil, I didn't find it so.

I never accused anyone of trying to doxx me, what I specifically said was that on the other forum I read comments like "will we ever find out who XXXXXXX is really?" and references to looking at IP addresses. I can't imagine what forum users would want to see visitor IP addresses for other than an attempt to identify them?

One might say the same about any other website.

Yes, that is true and that is why I have turned down a couple of invitations to join the other forum, I find it poorly moderated and hateful so I choose not to spend my time there. See how that works?

 

[SuperMatt]

Yes, that is true and that is why I have turned down a couple of invitations to join the other forum, I find it poorly moderated and hateful so I choose not to spend my time there. See how that works?

It doesn’t work. To me, it makes even less sense to complain about a website one isn’t even a member of. And when one knows some here are members of both sites, I don’t think using terms like "vulgar, crass and hateful” to describe them is conducive to civil discussion. And that’s the topic of this thread after all....

 

[icanhazmac]

To me, it makes even less sense to complain about a website one isn’t even a member of. And when one knows some here are members of both sites, I don’t think using terms like "vulgar, crass and hateful” to describe them is conducive to civil discussion. And that’s the topic of this thread after all....

Ok, the other forum was brought into this thread by other members of that forum, not me so I consider it fair game. There was basically open recruitment to join in post #29, citing that forum as a place "to see a more polite, civil discussion", as well as post #103, citing "register an account on XXXXXX to discuss further, this post even falsely stated that other MR members were there when in fact they weren't and again in post #157, where the member asked me to "visit the other place and hold a civil conversation.

Now, that being said, if I offered you an invitation to a forum and you found the exact same posts I saw with your name attached to them instead of mine how likely would you be to join that forum for "civil" conversation about our differences of opinion?

Also, objectively speaking, would you categorize posts on the other forum that contain my name as "polite" or "civil" conversation?

 

[SuperMatt]

sounds like folks there want to doxx members here so no thanks

I never accused anyone of trying to doxx me

Seems like we have a bit of a discrepancy here...

 

[icanhazmac]

Seems like we have a bit of a discrepancy here...

No discrepancy at all...

so you are calling the people from the other site hypocrites,"vulgar, crass and hateful," accusing them of trying to dox you, etc.

That was your statement.... this was mine:

Especially when you read things like "war between forums" and "will we ever find out who XXXX user really is" and "maybe you can cross reference IPs", sounds like folks there want to doxx members here so no thanks.

"sounds like folks there want to doxx members here" does not equal me directly accusing anyone of trying to doxx me. It is a hypothetical reason for why members there are asking questions like "will we ever find out who XXXXX is really?" or "cross reference IP addresses". Are all these invitations to join the other forum further attempts to ID users here?

Why do you think users on the other forum ask questions like that? I have zero interest in who you are IRL or what your IP address is, the only reasons to want information like that would be to try to ID you or to contact you etc, I have no interest! But it seems that members of the other forum do.

 

[itickings]

"sounds like folks there want to doxx members here" does not equal me directly accusing anyone of trying to doxx me. It is a hypothetical reason for why members there are asking questions like "will we ever find out who XXXXX is really?" or "cross reference IP addresses". Are all these invitations to join the other forum further attempts to ID users here?

Why do you think users on the other forum ask questions like that?

Given that somebody reading this thread apparently fraudulently signed up as @Apple_Robert at that other place you are obsessing over only to start posting bad stuff and promptly got themselves banned, it sounds more like curiosity about which MR poster was responsible for the heinous act rather than doxxing. Pretty sure nobody cares about IRL identities. What would be the point?

Wouldn’t it be nice to find out what account here maliciously wronged an upstanding member of this community?

 

[icanhazmac]

Pretty sure nobody cares about IRL identities.

Well ask the folks over there why they would post questions like that, or perhaps you have another reason for why those questions would be asked? Furthermore I think those posts were older than this thread but I won't be going back to check.

Perhaps one of you members over there would be kind enough to post links to those specific questions? I'll wait..........