MacRumors Vigilantism

[Apple_Robert]

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.

That is not what Mike said much less @Weaselboy

MacRumors Vigilantism

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.

forums.macrumors.com

What was said is that in this particular forum, members are free to discuss the rules and general moderation, so long as the moderation talk does not involve specific instances of personal moderation for a member etc. This forum is also about exchanging opinions, which the accused "vigilantes" have been doing. That is not the same thing as being a vigilante or try and mini mod those in this forum. which hasn't been done. What we alleged "vigilantes" appear to be guilty of is offering contrary opinion at times to many of the same reporters and responders in a thread.

I don't agree with your interpretation of @maflynn post or the purpose behind the thread creation. At the same time, I support your right to post your opinion at any time, as well as the creation of future threads, so long as it was within the rules. I would also make it a point to fight for your continued right to do so if need be, even though you were seeking to silence me, @I7guy, @icanhazmac, and another member of the forum.

 

[SuperMatt]

That is not what Mike said much less @Weaselboy

MacRumors Vigilantism

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.

forums.macrumors.com

What was said is that in this particular forum, members are free to discuss the rules and general moderation, so long as the moderation talk does not involve specific instances of personal moderation for a member etc. This forum is also about exchanging opinions, which the accused "vigilantes" have been doing.

I don't agree with your interpretation of @maflynn post or the purpose behind the thread creation. At the same time, I support your right to post your opinion at any time, as well as the creation of future threads, so long as it was within the rules. I would also make it a point to fight for your continued right to do so if need be, even though you were seeking to silence me, @I7guy, @icanhazmac, and another member of the forum.

Hmm… asking a question = seeking to silence other members? Seems like a bit of a stretch. One might almost call it an “ugly” accusation towards @AutomaticApple …

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Perhaps ‘mini-modding’ is the wrong phrase here? I must admit it does make me cringe a bit when I browse the feedback section and within the first few posters a general member advises the OP to use the ‘Contact’ link and then issues a non-official statement on behalf of the staff. I’m sure it helps the mods to some degree because it does some of their job for them and they don’t have to copy and paste that default answer, but it’s a bit weird IMHO. Not at all against the rules but rather comes across as very sycophantic behaviour.

I don’t think this sort of thing will ever be resolved though and a significant number of posters are rather unhappy with the uneven application of how rules are often enforced. Some won’t agree with that and some will, that’s life I suppose .

 

[SuperMatt]

Perhaps ‘mini-modding’ is the wrong phrase here? I must admit it does make me cringe a bit when I browse the feedback section and within the first few posters a general member advises the OP to use the ‘Contact’ link and then issues a non-official statement on behalf of the staff. I’m sure it helps the mods to some degree because it does some of their job for them and they don’t have to copy and paste that default answer, but it’s a bit weird IMHO. Not at all against the rules but rather comes across as very sycophantic behaviour.

I don’t think this sort of thing will ever be resolved though and a significant number of posters are rather unhappy with the uneven application of how rules are often enforced. Some won’t agree with that and some will, that’s life I suppose .

Perhaps a sticky at the top of the SFF? The FAQ has a LOT in there.

Many questions here are about individual moderation decisions, directly or indirectly. Putting a sticky on top of the forum with something like “Please try using the contact form before creating a thread here” would be more helpful?

 

[Stephen.R]

This forum is also about exchanging opinions

While we wait for the mods to reply to my questions, and as you like to 'participate' in these threads, why don't you have a go at answering these questions, paraphrased from my own earlier questions:

How is “use the contact form” an opinion on a policy/rule ?

How is “the mods won’t respond to this” an opinion on a policy or rule?

How is “maybe you should go elsewhere” an opinion on a policy or a rule?



That's what's being talked about.




If I start a thread and say "the rules are too strict, I should be able to call people <insert derogatory term> because they exhibit signs of <derogatory term>", and you responded with an actual opinion on that, whether for or against either my suggestion or the status quo, or some other variant, no one would suggest your post is "vigilantism".


But that isn't the sort of posts that anyone is asking/complaining about.



I've tried to explain this point, I think 3... 4 times, in this thread, and I don't really see why it's so hard to answer what's being asked about, as opposed to making up straw-man situations that no one has actually raised.

 

[AutomaticApple]

I’ve seen those threads before they (prob Eric) took those threads private….it’s an echo chamber there.

This place is even more of an echo chamber, so I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

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.

Never once did I say that participating in a forum equates to vigilantism. Attempting to essentially do the job of a moderator is very much vigilantism. You can tell the difference between a regular post and a mini-modding post.

But yes, close this thread before even more of a case can be made for this issue. Just shove it under the rug so that it isn't a problem anymore, right?

you were seeking to silence me, @I7guy, @icanhazmac, and another member of the forum.

Such an accusation is baseless and nonsensical. If you think there's some sort of conspiracy against your group, you can rest assured that isn't true.

 

[Stephen.R]

This thread is not productive, baseless and going around in circles and should be closed.

A number of people have requested feedback from the moderators about a pretty clearly defined pattern of behaviour that's been described multiple times.

So far, there have been, to my eye, 3 responses from moderators, and then several as-yet unanswered followup questions, based on what those moderators said.

A goodly part of the rest of the replies in this thread, are further examples of the behaviour that's being asked about. Including this very comment of yours that I'm replying to.


If you're concerned that this thread is "not productive, baseless and going around in circles", why keep responding? Just let the moderators reply to the questions they've been asked. You are of course free to add your own opinions about the behaviour that's been discussed - but "this thread should be closed" is not really an opinion about the topic. It's evidence of the topic.

 

[Weaselboy]

Moderator Note:

The thread is closed since the OP's question has been answered by two moderators and a site administrator on page one.

 

[annk]

Summary:

• Anything posted in a public thread can be discussed by all users who have access to that forum section, as long as the posts adhere to the rules.
• It's fine for users who aren't staff to discuss rules with other users. If you don't want your fellow users to discuss with you, don't post your question publically.
• You might not like it when someone posts something, even when staff decides it's within the rules. In that case, move on.
• If you report a post and don't agree with how we handled it, the next step is to ask us for more information about how we reached our decision. After the admins have done a review of moderation: if, as is often but not always the case, we don't see a reason to reverse moderation, the next step is to accept that we might not agree with you and move on.
• Suggesting that some users cease posting, as was done in this thread, isn't ok.
• It's not ok to tell another user to leave a thread or the forum. If you continually post about your dissatisfaction with the site, however, it's common sense to expect that someone might ask why you don't choose to go elsewhere. Feel free to answer the question if you wish in that case. However: these two things are not equivalent. To suggest they are is to attempt to weaponize the rules.
• Not agreeing with the response you get when you use the Contact Us form is not equivalent to being "shunned," as was suggested in this thread.
• We completely get that this site, its rules and moderation, won't please everyone. Feel free to continue to give feedback about the site and rules, we discuss all feedback. Quite a few changes have been made on the basis of feedback through the years. Once you've given your feedback, remember that the staff might not agree with how you feel things should be done. Continuing to post the same arguments once you've received an answer from staff isn't going to change anything and in some circumstances can even be trolling.