Yes, but those are general community guided posts which create no discussion which flare into troll-baiting, insulting and other demeanors.
Where as LGBT related topics, unluckily, do garner that type of response by less illustrious crowds.
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 LGBT+ article policy - disabling/deleting comments
- Thread starter chumps52
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where as LGBT related topics, unluckily, do garner that type of response by less illustrious crowds.
Which is why I believe that some of those articles should be left up to the writer if they want comments enabled or disabled. In the end, it's the editorial and moderator staff that have to deal with clean up of postings in such articles as you can't wasteland an article thread.
Just imagine the pain a moderator must feel to see 100+ reports from a PSRI related topic? This is why PSRI is gone and should be gone.
A technology based website that posted a news article about PRIDE BANDS that were released as accessories for a tech product by a tech company. We didn't open the door to the topic, the site did by posting the news article and disabling comments, blocking discussion amongst the very people to whom PRIDE BANDS would appeal. No one is trying to turn MR into a gay bar; we just wanted to talk about the subject of a news article that they chose to post, which is watch bands, not "discussions of LGBT" (whatever that's supposed to mean).
"Indulge" is another interesting word choice.
Don't you think I also want to discuss getting one or the face? However, I do realize some people are not as open as we'd like. Hence, it's best not to touch a subject which only risks derailing the article's focus. As sad as that comment from me is, it's a truth.
In all honesty, no, I don't think that you do because it doesn't seem that you do.
I don't cause I know how bad some discussions get and I'd rather avoid it altogether than fan a flame war. Same reason why I stay off entirely of the Political News Forum of the site.
Who decides this? Seems harsh. Are you wanting to step up in this manner?
It's not and I have seen people be banned due to threads that have gotten way out of hand in PSRI. However, fighting it is like fighting a Hydra, cut of one head, two more emerge.
It's very easy and shows the immense luxury and privilege of those not in minority or marginalized groups to have "those other types of threads" be the ones to have comments get shut down.
Including Asperger? up to 20% of SF bay area are Aspies
PSRI is a very good example of what can happen when moderation does not occur or is insufficent. If something becomes to hard to police, remove it completely rather than deal with the trouble makers and that attitude has been going on for generations and will continue to go on for generations. There will always be those that will lash out at authourity, there will always be those who have views that do not align with societys way of view, there will always be those who will be awkward and annoying just for the hell of it because they know they can.
You do not shut down a problem completely just because it creates to much work, that is just the lazy way out. If moderators are paid then tell them to do their job better. If they are un-paid volunteers then get more of them but don't just shut off comments or remove forum sections because it's going to create more moderation work because that is just being lazy in my opinion.
You do not shut down a problem completely just because it creates to much work, that is just the lazy way out. If moderators are paid then tell them to do their job better. If they are un-paid volunteers then get more of them but don't just shut off comments or remove forum sections because it's going to create more moderation work because that is just being lazy in my opinion.
As @Jumpthesnark has detailed at length, this comes off sounding a whole lot like "nobody should be allowed to mention anything related to a topic that makes me uncomfortable", even if that topic is a core part of who they are.
Yes, this is a technology based website. And yet this website discusses ALL SORTS OF TOPICS ONLY VAGUELY RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY. If this is truly a website where only TECHNOLOGY can/should be discussed... how many of those posts on that lengthy list have you reported to the mods for removal, since they're all clearly off-topic? I'm sure it's in the hundreds, right?
Oh, but LGBT topics must go elsewhere. Why is that? What gives all those other topics a free pass, but not LGBT topics? It quickly starts sounding like an arbitrary and "convenient" application of the rules, rather than something having a reasonable basis.
And the proper response is to suspend those "less illustrious crowds" for increasingly longer periods of time, in the hopes that they learn the error of their ways, and eventually ban them permanently, if they don't.
There's really not much way around the point that to do otherwise, to just preemptively ban all comments, on a thread about the color of a ****ing watchband, is to just preemptively cave to the "less illustrious crowds", giving them control over the conversation.
It says, "if there's a topic you don't like, just make the comments a **** show, and you'll win, the conversation will be entirely shut down" (and you won't be punished by being suspended or banned, the topic you don't like will be banned instead).
Last edited:
Are you willing? It seems convenient how many people are willing to donate other people's time. THIS is why PRSI was shut down. Go to a site that caters to political discussion. It isn't like there aren't several tens of thousands of these.
Also keep in mind that the discomfort and nuance needs to go both ways. Show me a topic and I can argue any side of it and make both sides uncomfortable. Then get banned by both sides. Self censorship is a thing and bullying by both sides is a thing.
But the main point I am making is that it isn't like these mods are paid, and all the hot shots in here talking about representation aren't willing to represent mods.
Reddit is junk now. At least, Macrumors act like more grownups.
I agree for the most part, but I have to admit, I stick with very specific technical subreddits….
They aren't soliciting more moderators (that I'm aware of)
If they were or do at some point, I'm sure many of us would be possibly interested
That's a bit of a diversion from the actual topic here
There isn't more moderation work needed here over the long term. Initially, there may be some higher than usual suspending and moderating needed, but that would be in service of behavior correction or eventual outright banning of folks who can't comport themselves in agreeable ways.
Mods in MR are picked out, not selected from volunteers. That's according to an old Q&A.
I was replying to the specific point being made by @eltoslightfoot
They were insinuating that we are all "complaining but unwilling to personally step up and help!" (paraphrasing)
To your point -- that's irrelevant, as we aren't even likely to be in consideration to help even if we wanted to.
Thank you for adding that information about how moderators are selected.
I think that is likely new information to most of us, so thank you.
Last edited:
In the old site, I could link the actual article. But I can't find the information now. Perhaps a member of the Staff could shed more light if the process changed.
Are you talking about this FAQ entry?
Yup, that one. Although it used to be be worded differently from what I recall. 😅😂
Having been a moderator for wargaming.net for 4 years, could I do the job, yes with ease, am I willing to do the job, nope because I like my free time too much.
The only reason moderation staff is brought up in discussions is because it has been pointed out a couple of times by MR staff in this thread that decisions have been taken the way they have on the subject matter at hand because of the heavy work load moderation staff have to deal with. Hence the call to get more staff.
Mods signed up to do this job. So they should, you know, do it. This isn't something they're being forced to do, they're all volunteers. If they're tired of doing it, they can step down. If more are needed, bring on more mods like every single discussion forum on the internet does when they experience growth. It's not super complicated.