MacRumors Vigilantism

[Stephen.R]

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

And when those posts, where they are "trying to be helpful" are just the same statements repeated ad nauseam while also being at odds with/contradicting the rules both as written and as demonstrably interpreted, how exactly is that helpful in terms of answering the query that was posed?

You know the same repeated phrase I mean.

"Use the contact us link".


Or did you mean the other kind of helpful? Helpful to you? If non-moderators discourage other users from posting questions about what they perceive to be inconsistent or unfairly applied moderation policies, then there is less "controversy" and less public debate about the finer details how things are interpreted.

We've seen plenty of times where someone asks about a policy - a moderator may or may not get around to replying before the last defenders of moderator honour arrive, pull the entire thread into a shouting match, and it invariably gets locked, without any response from moderators to followup questions.


So which is it? Is that pattern not a problem for you (as group), or are you just going to deny what we all saw happen... <checks notes> yesterday.

 

[SuperMatt]

Personally I found posts like this one to be extremely abrasive and on point with the discussion at hand:

Clarification on "Citation Rule"

Matt, The staff has made their position crystal clear numerous times. Why do you persist in continuing to argue over positions that have already been addressed? How many times do you need to be told no before you get the idea that the staff doesn't agree with you? I get that you and a few...

forums.macrumors.com

You may not feel this is an issue but I can tell you that other people do indeed see it so. This post felt authorative given its source.

When one sees such posts being left alone, one can't help but feel that despite any directive actually given, that there are indeed some "favorites" that are given freerer range to post text that others might not be able to do so.

I get that SFF is a rather unique forum, that said there's posts discussing the topic, and then there's posts from normal users that feel are coming from "the faithful" toeing the party line and almost instructing the rest of us how to accept the rules.

It certainly is informative to see that post which berated me extensively and said “maybe you should consider going elsewhere" and compare it my statement of “win friends and influence people” and realize that some moderators consider my post to be the “intimidating” one. 🤷‍♂️

Thanks for the point of comparison, @TiggrToo.

 

[Stephen.R]

it's fine to post your take on the rules.

Is it also fine to

• Suggest people should “leave”?
• Tell people that moderators won’t reply to their thread in SFF?
• Continually try to discourage people from asking questions about policies in the public forum?

 

[Madhatter32]

...

I read your citation to the post that is supposed to demonstrate so-called "vigilantism." It is perhaps abrasive but the poster there is simply stating an opinion on moderator action (or lack thereof) and is not even offering a judgment/opinion on any particular rule. Also, I, for one, did not think he was acting as an authority on behalf of the moderators. Just a person offering an opinion -- like in every single thread on MacRumors. If you could post another example that is more illuminating, perhaps that would further the discussion.

As to the vigilantism issue, in general, I think that people who are trying to be helpful is a good thing. Why would that bother anyone? If you think someone is trying to impersonate a moderator or trolling somehow, just report that person. Real simple.

 

[Madhatter32]

And when those posts, where they are "trying to be helpful" are just the same statements repeated ad nauseam while also being at odds with/contradicting the rules both as written and as demonstrably interpreted, how exactly is that helpful in terms of answering the query that was posed?

You know the same repeated phrase I mean.

"Use the contact us link".


Or did you mean the other kind of helpful? Helpful to you? If non-moderators discourage other users from posting questions about what they perceive to be inconsistent or unfairly applied moderation policies, then there is less "controversy" and less public debate about the finer details how things are interpreted.

We've seen plenty of times where someone asks about a policy - a moderator may or may not get around to replying before the last defenders of moderator honour arrive, pull the entire thread into a shouting match, and it invariably gets locked, without any response from moderators to followup questions.


So which is it? Is that pattern not a problem for you (as group), or are you just going to deny what we all saw happen... <checks notes> yesterday.

If some guy tells me that I am breaking a rule here, you know what I would do? I would look at the rule to see whether that person is correct or not. If I agree, I would edit the post. Perhaps I would thanks the person for the heads up. If I do not agree, I would ignore that comment and do nothing. What I would not do is take offense over some random person's opinion on a rule.

 

[TiggrToo]

If you think someone is trying to impersonate a moderator or trolling somehow, just report that person. Real simple

No, it's not. There is a perception that seems to be born from personal evidence among others that such an action is not "real simple".

If this was "real simple" this thread would not exist.

 

[ipponrg]

Or did you mean the other kind of helpful? Helpful to you? If non-moderators discourage other users from posting questions about what they perceive to be inconsistent or unfairly applied moderation policies, then there is less "controversy" and less public debate about the finer details how things are interpreted.

We've seen plenty of times where someone asks about a policy - a moderator may or may not get around to replying before the last defenders of moderator honour arrive, pull the entire thread into a shouting match, and it invariably gets locked, without any response from moderators to followup questions.

In my opinion, I feel like some have unrealistic expectations of what happens when you ask about policies publicly. Would you not expect other people to chime in with their opinions because it's a public thread?

For grey area content, it seems clear to me that the moderators generally favor a particular writing style for better or worse. It seems some haven't adapted to it, so they keep getting burned.

 

[Madhatter32]

No, it's not. There is a perception that seems to be born from personal evidence among others that such an action is not "real simple".

If this was "real simple" this thread would not exist.

I do not share your perception, nor do many others.

 

[Stephen.R]

Would you not expect other people to chime in with their opinions because it's a public thread?

“use the contact form” is not an opinion on a policy

“the mods won’t respond to this” is not an opinion on a policy

“maybe you should go elsewhere” is not an opinion on a policy.

 

[SuperMatt]

I think people need to accept that if they ask a question, some people will attempt to give a seemingly-authoritative answer before the mods do.

I think the people who give those types of answers need to accept that such answers might not be taken well by others in many cases.

I guess it’s all about managing expectations?

 

[icanhazmac]

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.

If one doesn't want public interaction, don't scream for the manager in the middle of a crowded store, find his office, phone number or email address.

One can speak to the "manager" without public input at MR, the "contact us link" accomplishes this.

IMO some members here don't really want a private discussion of the rules/moderation with the staff, what I believe they want is an opportunity to publicly virtue signal, to the public but without dissenting feedback, while attempting to shame the staff into moderating the the forums to their standards.

 

[Stephen.R]

If some guy tells me that I am breaking a rule here, you know what I would do? I would look at the rule to see whether that person is correct or not.

That isn’t at all the scenario in question.

the very literal situation that has repeatedly occurred has been described multiple times in this thread.

If you want to discuss the actual thing being talked about, i suggest you read the posts before you reply to them because right now it just seems like a very poorly made straw man.

 

[I7guy]

“use the contact form” is not an opinion on a policy

correct, it’s the method the staff uses to further interact the MR members

“the mods won’t respond to this” is not an opinion

Yes it is and it’s certainly within one’s right to express that opinion

“maybe you should go elsewhere” is not an opinion on a policy.

MR is run in a certain style. Those who don’t like the style can request a change in policy as some are doing here…which is what this forum is for…or find another place to hang out or live here within the rules. If someone posts this type of verbiage in a thread and you believe there is a rule violation with the post, report that post.

 

[I7guy]

[…]


Or did you mean the other kind of helpful? Helpful to you? If non-moderators discourage other users from posting questions about what they perceive to be inconsistent or unfairly applied moderation policies, then there is less "controversy" and less public debate about the finer details how things are interpreted.

We've seen plenty of times where someone asks about a policy - a moderator may or may not get around to replying before the last defenders of moderator honour arrive, pull the entire thread into a shouting match, and it invariably gets locked, without any response from moderators to followup questions.[…]

Seems what you are alluding to is the censure of those who believe the site moderation policies are overall ok. The contact us link exists so that even if a thread gets locked the link can be used for follow up.

 

[Madhatter32]

That isn’t at all the scenario in question.

the very literal situation that has repeatedly occurred has been described multiple times in this thread.

If you want to discuss the actual thing being talked about, i suggest you read the posts before you reply to them because right now it just seems like a very poorly made straw man.

But I have. I have read the one example proffered as an example and it clearly did not constitute any kind of "vigilantism." It was simply an opinion. I also read the one concise explanation of the issue as it was described as "mini moddling." So, perhaps you are discussing an issue that no one else is. Maybe a little helpfulness on your part would crystalize the issue as you see it.

 

[Stephen.R]

correct, it’s the method the staff uses to further interact the MR members

Yes it is and it’s certainly within one’s right to express that opinion

MR is run in a certain style. Those who don’t like the style can request a change in policy as some are doing here…which is what this forum is for…or find another place to hang out or live here within the rules. If someone posts this type of verbiage in a thread and you believe there is a rule violation with the post, report that post.

The whole point of this thread is to get clarification from the moderators about posts like that.

the second “not an opinion” point you quoted was an editor/typing issue - the “on a policy” part got cut off (seriously has no one else had weird issues with the editor on iOS?). I understand your rely with what was posted, but the post I replied to was specifically talking about replies with opinions on the policy.

 

[Stephen.R]

But I have. I have read the one example proffered as an example and it clearly did not constitute any kind of "vigilantism." It was simply an opinion. I also read the one concise explanation of the issue as it was described as "mini moddling." So, perhaps you are discussing an issue that no one else is. Maybe a little helpfulness on your part would crystalize the issue as you see it.

You clearly didn’t even read the post you quoted which describes some of posts in question.

 

[Stephen.R]

Seems what you are alluding to is the censure of those who believe the site moderation policies are overall ok. The contact us link exists so that even if a thread gets locked the link can be used for follow up.

If you think the policies are ok, you can state that, no one has said people shouldn’t have or state opinions.

Trying to dissuade or disrupt discussion of the policies is not stating an opinion about those policies.

suggesting people should leave is not stating an opinion about those policies.

how many times do I have to post the same explanations before someone will read it before responding?

 

[I7guy]

If you think the policies are ok, you can state that, no one has said people shouldn’t have or state opinions.

Trying to dissuade or disrupt discussion of the policies is not stating an opinion about those policies.

suggesting people should leave is not stating an opinion about those policies.

how many times do I have to post the same explanations before someone will read it before responding?

Fair enough. But you can step over and ignore posts you believe aren't adding to the conversation is the other side of it.

edit: I don’t believe anybody here is trying to dissuade or disrupt anything…just provide a viewpoint as they believe things stand.

 

[AutomaticApple]

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

Well, you (accidentally?) answered my question. Vigilantism/mini-modding is allowed then.

I appreciate the input from the staff. Thanks! This has been a very productive thread so far.

 

[Madhatter32]

You clearly didn’t even read the post you quoted which describes some of posts in question.

My name is Madhatter32. I have determined that you have broken the rules that prohibit making baseless unsupported accusations about what others have read or not. You are in violation.

Did I fool you? Probably not. As you know, I am not a moderator and not an expert on the rules either. But if I did fool you, I would suggest that you look to the rules to make a determination for yourself and either change your post or otherwise just ignore me. I did not mean to hurt your feelings so there is no reason to be overly sensitive. I personally have not come across any examples of so called "mini moddling" on this site and do not think it is a problem at all. I'm not saying it has not happened -- that is why I invited the other poster (the Tiggr person) to provide an another example, which they refused to do, to further the discussion. So, if you have some kind of demonstration of the problem -- other than a poster trying to help another or otherwise merely expressing an obvious opinion -- I would invite you to share it. Otherwise, I will continue to view this as a manufactured phantom-like problem that largely does not exist here. Just another distraction that takes away from other issues that should be addressed.

 

[Stephen.R]

My name is Madhatter32. I have determined that you have broken the rules that prohibit making baseless unsupported accusations about what others have read or not. You are in violation.

Did I fool you? Probably not. As you know, I am not a moderator and not an expert on the rules either. But if I did fool you, I would suggest that you look to the rules to make a determination for yourself and either change your post or otherwise just ignore me. I did not mean to hurt your feelings so there is no reason to be overly sensitive. I personally have not come across any examples of so called "mini moddling" on this site and do not think it is a problem at all. I'm not saying it has not happened -- that is why I invited the other poster (the Tiggr person) to provide an another example, which they refused to do, to further the discussion. So, if you have some kind of demonstration of the problem -- other than a poster trying to help another or otherwise merely expressing an obvious opinion -- I would invite you to share it. Otherwise, I will continue to view this as a manufactured phantom-like problem that largely does not exist here. Just another distraction that takes away from other issues that should be addressed.

Straw man is made of straw.

 

[Stephen.R]

For the record, I’d still like answers to the questions I asked too. They’re not rhetorical.

So which is it? Is that pattern not a problem for you (as group), or are you just going to deny what we all saw happen... <checks notes> yesterday.

Is it also fine to

• Suggest people should “leave”?
• Tell people that moderators won’t reply to their thread in SFF?
• Continually try to discourage people from asking questions about policies in the public forum?

 

[ian87w]

Edit: I just posted a long message, but I changed my mind…

 

[I7guy]

Well, you (accidentally?) answered my question. Vigilantism/mini-modding is allowed then.

I appreciate the input from the staff. Thanks! This has been a very productive thread so far.

So participating equates to vigilantism? That’s a strange definition.

As has been discussed if privacy is concerning use the contact us link button.

If one is going to be accused of mini-modding, the shoe might as well fit. This thread is not productive, baseless and going around in circles and should be closed.