I'll expound on
@maflynn's correct response above. There are two technical issues here:
- Asking the administrators why the moderators deemed that no action was necessary on a reported post. @SuperMatt you have already submitted a contact message about this issue, and you will get a response. Sending a contact was exactly the right thing to do in that case - we always review moderation when a question is raised, and send an answer. Discussion can take several days, since the staff is located around the globe, but we take this stuff seriously and you will get an answer.
- What can be discussed in this section, Site and Forum Feedback. Here, we welcome site feedback, including general discussions of the rules and moderation. Specific violations that have been posted can never be discussion here. As to posts where no moderation has been done, I think it's a good idea not to discuss these posts here, for two reasons:
- A contact has already - and appropriately - been submitted.
- It can be uncomfortable for the user who created the post to see the post taken out of thread and held up for public discussion.
- Upon review, it can turn out that there was in fact a violation that we didn't see the first time around. When we then moderate the post, it's no longer allowed to discuss it here.
So my advice in cases like this would be - out of respect to fellow MR members - not to bring up a specific post, but rather to ask the question generally.
For example: are threats of violence allowed on MacRumors?
The short answer is no. But that statement needs to be modified:
It's never acceptable to threaten violence against another forum user, or even imply that you or others will or should incur violence against a forum user. That one is clear.
So what about a general or more vague incitement to or suggestion of violence, not necessarily to another forum user or any specific person or group? It's not going to be clear, and that's because of context. In many cases I'm able to imagine, those would likely not be acceptable, but those statements need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
In general, we strive to allow users as broad a range of expression as possible, within guidelines of civility. Again, speaking generally, I would describe our approach as an "as much as necessary but as little as possible" policy. Speaking more specifically, when confronted with a post where violence is mentioned in a way that can be considered questionable, we will strive to moderate anything that can be seen to be a true threat or or incitement to violence, but also strive to only limit user expression when we truly feel it needs to be done.
I can also mention that we can't - and don't - try to take into consideration whether or not a user was joking or meant the comment to be tongue-in-cheek. We can't read minds, and have to take posts at face value. This is especially important where violence is concerned.
That said, we are human, so of course 1) we can make mistakes! Hence, the necessitiy of the review system, and 2) it's a given that not all users will agree with our decisions.
I hope this clears up any confusion about where to get answers to questions about specific moderation decisions and what can be discussed here, as well as giving more insight into how we view these situations.
