Is vigilantism allowed on MacRumors? I would like to hear what the moderators think about it and how they stand regarding such behavior. 
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 Vigilantism
- Thread starter AutomaticApple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
What does this post mean? Please clarify. If you mean people can report misconduct, that already exist -- although with questionable effect.
Or are they posters who are participating in a thread topic in a public forum with their opinions of moderation? I don’t understand the purpose of this thread given the pejorative word “vigilantes”. A MacRumors forum vigalente?
Given what the OP said in the "Citation" thread, he considers you, me, icanhaz, and another member to be vigilantes, because we often respond to threads like this.
Clarification on "Citation Rule"
Vigilantes seem to bring this point up over and over again. The "Contact Us" form is not a saving grace and most people are just shunned from what I've heard.
forums.macrumors.com
Last edited:
I'm talking about going into nearly every SFF thread and playing the duty of the mods. That kind of vigilantism.
I don’t think it should be prohibited.
However, I don‘t understand why some people come onto the SFF and answer questions in an authoritative tone as if they are moderators. IMHO, let the moderators answer for themselves.
However, I don‘t understand why some people come onto the SFF and answer questions in an authoritative tone as if they are moderators. IMHO, let the moderators answer for themselves.
Yeah, I'm wondering if that's allowed. It's not like you can gain points for doing so. What's the big deal?
Posters are clearly free to provide site feedback in these forums even those related to moderation questions as these are open forums.
My suggestion is to skip over posts that have no value to the person reading the thread. But I hope the mods/staff provide an all encompassing answer to put to bed some of this.
My suggestion is to skip over posts that have no value to the person reading the thread. But I hope the mods/staff provide an all encompassing answer to put to bed some of this.
When someone posts a publicly complaint. They may receive public push back. At times SFF posts could be asked to mods/admin privately. Also, sometimes the OP has other underlying motives for lodging their complaint via SFF.
That's 'mini modding' (or backseat moderation) - I can only say that on most forum's I've been a member of, including one I did a stint of moderation with myself, it's frowned upon. Again that's because speaking with the authority of a mod but without the authority/ powers to back it up generally just leads to a big squabble. I can't actually see whether it's addressed in the MR forum rules, but yeah, it's definitely a bit of a taboo in general forum etiquette in my experience.
It seems to me, that some here want to silence the voice of some others in this particular forum.
If someone believes any posts in this forum violate the rules in some way, said forum member should report any posts in question and let the mods do their duty.
This is an open forum where members are allowed to comment and provide feedback so long as said posts don't violate the rules. At times, there may be disagreement between fellow members as has often been the case, as well as between staff and forum members. That, in and of itself, does not constitute vigilantism, in my opinion.
When some members post what they understand to be the current rules, link to the proper procedure for the forum rules during a discussion, or post an opinion on the current subject in this forum, that isn't being a vigilante much less some unofficial gun for the mods. In my opinion, that kind of notion is rather absurd.
The mods and staff have complete control of this forum at all times and if they see people getting out of line and being abusive to one another, they handle the situation appropriately.
Just because some here don't like that many of the same members respond to a thread, that should not be cause for said members removal from the forum, so long as said members haven't broken any rules. That goes for the OP of any thread and any respondents thereto, in my opinion.
I may not agree with some posts in this forum at times and many here may not like my viewpoint on some topics. However, I believe all voices should be heard in this forum.
If someone believes any posts in this forum violate the rules in some way, said forum member should report any posts in question and let the mods do their duty.
This is an open forum where members are allowed to comment and provide feedback so long as said posts don't violate the rules. At times, there may be disagreement between fellow members as has often been the case, as well as between staff and forum members. That, in and of itself, does not constitute vigilantism, in my opinion.
When some members post what they understand to be the current rules, link to the proper procedure for the forum rules during a discussion, or post an opinion on the current subject in this forum, that isn't being a vigilante much less some unofficial gun for the mods. In my opinion, that kind of notion is rather absurd.
The mods and staff have complete control of this forum at all times and if they see people getting out of line and being abusive to one another, they handle the situation appropriately.
Just because some here don't like that many of the same members respond to a thread, that should not be cause for said members removal from the forum, so long as said members haven't broken any rules. That goes for the OP of any thread and any respondents thereto, in my opinion.
I may not agree with some posts in this forum at times and many here may not like my viewpoint on some topics. However, I believe all voices should be heard in this forum.
Odd you should say that because that's exactly the issue being described - it goes both ways.
This seems to be an issue for some, there are those that haven’t raised this as an issue. I disagree it goes both ways.
We would typically remove comments like that in threads as off-topic, but in a SFF thread about moderation it is not off-topic so it would generally be allowed.
It seems to me that some folks want to be seen as an authority on the rules when in reality it is the moderators who interpret the rules.
When somebody at a store wants to speak to the manager, the last thing they want is to be lectured by one of the other customers while they wait. IMHO, maybe some people should consider that before they do something similar. No rule against it, but certainly not a great way to win friends and influence people.
I think there is a difference between moderating a forum versus practicing ostracism in a forum on posts that you don't like to experience?
In my experience posting here on Macrumors, I had only a few times been warned by the moderators of violating MR posting rules and had a very few messages been deleted. MR rules are like house rules. You need to abide by the house rules or else either your posts will get deleted after the warning or your posting privileges will be reviewed by the moderators. I think the moderators had done the job they were assigned to do -- to review posts that are not off-topic and ensure all posters abide by the MR rules.
You can practice ostracism basically by filtering those posters that you don't like or else don't join the forum. We are all entitled to our own opinion and our own experiences, because we are not the same people who do things the same way, approach things with the same process and we will differ with our own experiences and hence our own opinions. It's like there are many ways to skin a cat and as long as we stay on topic; does it matter how it is presented as long as we present in a way that conforms to MR rules?
I think there's a prevalence of the "cancel culture", which is basically a process of ostracism. Some people go out of their way to try and cancel out other people's unpleasant opinions and viewpoints that don't agree with ours. We think that's the way to silence other people's opinion by cancelling them out. But people need to understand that when there is an action, there's always a reaction. When you practice ostracism, then eventually though what comes around does go around and other people can equally ostracize you, cancel you out.
I think we are here to share our diverse experiences and opinions and let the moderator moderate the topics and respect their judgement.
In my experience posting here on Macrumors, I had only a few times been warned by the moderators of violating MR posting rules and had a very few messages been deleted. MR rules are like house rules. You need to abide by the house rules or else either your posts will get deleted after the warning or your posting privileges will be reviewed by the moderators. I think the moderators had done the job they were assigned to do -- to review posts that are not off-topic and ensure all posters abide by the MR rules.
You can practice ostracism basically by filtering those posters that you don't like or else don't join the forum. We are all entitled to our own opinion and our own experiences, because we are not the same people who do things the same way, approach things with the same process and we will differ with our own experiences and hence our own opinions. It's like there are many ways to skin a cat and as long as we stay on topic; does it matter how it is presented as long as we present in a way that conforms to MR rules?
I think there's a prevalence of the "cancel culture", which is basically a process of ostracism. Some people go out of their way to try and cancel out other people's unpleasant opinions and viewpoints that don't agree with ours. We think that's the way to silence other people's opinion by cancelling them out. But people need to understand that when there is an action, there's always a reaction. When you practice ostracism, then eventually though what comes around does go around and other people can equally ostracize you, cancel you out.
I think we are here to share our diverse experiences and opinions and let the moderator moderate the topics and respect their judgement.
Yep, in my experience people do find it obnoxious and it can quite quickly lead to arguments (or worsen ones already ongoing) which I guess is why it's almost always an offence in itself.
I haven't seen any posts where it appears that users are "playing the duty of the mods," or anything I'd consider mini-modding. I have often seen users answer when other users ask questions about the rules in Site and Forum Feedback, and it seems pretty clear to me that they are answering as regular users. If something like what you describe were really happening, someone on the staff would no doubt contact the user and ask him/her/them to please make it clear that they're not posting on behalf of the staff.
A few times I've seen users make mistakes when they post something about the rules, and in those cases one of the staff generally posts a correction. No big deal.
When a user asks about a rule in a public thread on a forum, that user has to expect that other users might join in with what they think is the answer. If you or anyone else has a question about the rules and doesn't want other users to join in the discussion, you/they can always use the contact us form to ask the question privately.
Equating whether or not to post in a certain way with a "way to win friends and influence people" can easily be interpreted as intimidation, along the lines of "think twice before you post in a way I don't like." I'm not saying that was your intention, but I see it can be read that way. So just so everyone is clear, it's fine to post your take on the rules. If there are any inaccuracies in your post, someone - user or staff - might step in with the correct info.
This thread appears to be vigilantism where a number of members here are complaining against other active members. You have a right to post your opinion but they also do as well. It appears you are wanting to inhibit their participation .
I think the term "authorities tone" is a red herring, I don't believe anyone has mistaken those members as moderators, or administrators and if they do, they simply can look underneath the member's avatar to see if they're staff or not
I see a vocal minority of people complaining because @I7guy @icanhazmac and @Apple_Robert, choose to be helpful and are active in the SFF forum. I think we as a community should be looking to promote active participation not complain and try to inhibit
- Status