Moving threads to PRSI or Political News

[icanhazmac]

LOL. And how many times will YOU repeat your argument about people moving on, without actually getting anybody's mind changed?

Fair point! It just fascinates me how some people are so offended/triggered by what goes on here at MR and yet they stay.

I will use my right to post in S&FF to support the admirable and mostly thankless job the MR team does in response to posts I see that seek to tarnish it.

 

[ericgtr12]

The difference is I enjoy my time at MR, you and some others apparently do not as you are regularly triggered by speech so much that you feel the need to complain... a lot. I'll stay right here to offer a counter perspective to how you and the OP feel this site is moderated and run.

Which is exactly what we're doing so I don't see the rub here, maybe stop telling people to leave if that same advice doesn't sit well on both sides?

 

[0920872]

I'll try to explain.

The Community COVID threads you mention do not involve PRSI issues surrounding COVID, so they are allowed in the Community section.

The COVID news threads may or may not involve PRSI issues related to COVID, so it is a judgement call made by the editorial staff where to place the thread.

I agree with @SuperMatt that we should not allow members to railroad a benign news thread into a PRSI free-for-all. If I see a news article that has absolutely no PRSI angle to it, and members intentionally try to take the thread into PRSI territory, I moderate the PRSI posts and leave the thread where it is.

If there is a news thread that does generate PRSI posts, I look at the article and ask myself if it is reasonable to expect members to avoid PRSI posts given the thread topic. If the answer is no, I'll ask the editors to consider moving the thread to Political News.

And where is concrete misinformation positioned in that spectrum? (COVID = Flu; if you needed recurrent example).

Fair point! It just fascinates me how some people are so offended/triggered by what goes on here at MR and yet they stay.

Sure, as long as the irony of anchoring on criticizing others' anchoring is appreciated.

I will use my right to post in S&FF to support the admirable and mostly thankless job the MR team does in response to posts I see that seek to tarnish it.

I think we got that ~5 posts ago

 

[Weaselboy]

And where is concrete misinformation positioned in that spectrum? (COVID = Flu; if you needed recurrent example).

Hoax rule is not being enforced

In the past few months, some forum members have been posting dangerous hoaxes, which is an “instantly bannable” offense according to the Forum Rules. The posts have been reported, but the message from the moderators has been clear. They will not enforce this rule because they supposedly do not...

forums.macrumors.com

There was a long discussion in this ^ thread on that issue.

Moderator Note:

In an effort to keep this thread on topic, let's please not use this thread to relitigate the hoax issue in the above linked thread. Thanks

 

[I7guy]

Speaking of covid, that the covid threads in community discussions have remained free and clear of political talk shows that it is possible to talk about social issues and largely keep controversial posts out of the mix.

 

[icanhazmac]

Which is exactly what we're doing so I don't see the rub here, maybe stop telling people to leave if that same advice doesn't sit well on both sides?

Ug, this is getting circular.

I replied to the OP because I see regular complaints from that member, and honestly you fall into this category as well, because I am truly fascinated by why you remain here if this site is as bad as you both describe in your many posts on the topic. I can easily go back through your post history and find many, many references to how MR is a haven for nazis, racists, etc., it's very clearly not but if you feel it is why do you stay? Do you think that complaint #107 is going to work after the first 106 didn't?

@PearsonX is right, I'm beating my head against the same wall you are, you think MR is a cesspool, I don't. What I don't understand and what you won't answer is why you stay to repeatedly complain about your opinion of MR.

Sure, as long as the irony of anchoring on criticizing others' anchoring is appreciated.

It is and I think by acknowledging your point I made that clear.

I think we got that ~5 posts ago

As long as the irony of complaining about my 5 posts criticizing the MANY, MANY posts from the OP and a small handful of other members complaining about MR's moderation is appreciated!

 

[0920872]

It is and I think by acknowledging your point I made that clear.


As long as the irony of complaining about my 5 posts criticizing the MANY, MANY posts from the OP and a small handful of other members complaining about MR's moderation is appreciated!

Got it. I'm very happy for your appreciation. Let me know if I'm missing something about your point.

 

[ericgtr12]

Ug, this is getting circular.

I replied to the OP because I see regular complaints from that member, and honestly you fall into this category as well, because I am truly fascinated by why you remain here if this site is as bad as you both describe in your many posts on the topic. I can easily go back through your post history and find many, many references to how MR is a haven for nazis, racists, etc., it's very clearly not but if you feel it is why do you stay? Do you think that complaint #107 is going to work after the first 106 didn't?

Conversely, we can see how you lie in wait to criticize those who come into this specific forum on several occasions for voicing their feedback, which technically this forum is designed for. Not seeing the irony in telling people to leave if they don't like it, while yourself complaining while remaining here is simply baffling.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You seem to make a lot of threads complaining about how MR is moderated, perhaps you would be a happier person starting your own Apple themed site where you can manage the forums to your liking?

........

Its just that you seem to be involved in a lot of threads complaining about moderation at MR. If I felt the need to complain that much about something I felt that strongly about I would be looking for greener pastures, YMMV.

I wholeheartedly agree that you can and should voice your opinion but it seems that the same 5-10 members are always complaining about the moderation at MR and don't seem to getting anywhere as they are all still complaining, thread, after thread, after thread.



.......

My comments were for those that are constantly at odds with the moderation here at MR. At some point you just have to come to the conclusion that you might be the problem, not MR.

As I stated above:



I am not asking anyone to leave, I am just saying that if you are so unhappy here at MR start your own site or find another that better suits your sensabilities.

You are 100% correct and I reflected that in my post. As a member who thinks MR is generally run and moderated well I was merely expressing an opinion response to the OP who posts here regularly to complain about moderation and suggesting that the issue here is with him and not with the site/mods.

Question: how many times do you complain about the same thing and get no results before you just move on? Apparently some peoples appetite for this is far greater than mine. If I truly felt that any site/forum was a haven for ideas and thoughts that ran counter to my core beliefs I would just leave. The intarwebz are a big place, I'm sure places exist that would not offend the OP so much.



............

The difference is I enjoy my time at MR, you and some others apparently do not as you are regularly triggered by speech so much that you feel the need to complain... a lot. I'll stay right here to offer a counter perspective to how you and the OP feel this site is moderated and run.

Fair point! It just fascinates me how some people are so offended/triggered by what goes on here at MR and yet they stay.

......

Ug, this is getting circular.

I replied to the OP because I see regular complaints from that member, and honestly you fall into this category as well, because I am truly fascinated by why you remain here if this site is as bad as you both describe in your many posts on the topic. I can easily go back through your post history and find many, many references to how MR is a haven for nazis, racists, etc., it's very clearly not but if you feel it is why do you stay? Do you think that complaint #107 is going to work after the first 106 didn't?

@PearsonX is right, I'm beating my head against the same wall you are, you think MR is a cesspool, I don't. What I don't understand and what you won't answer is why you stay to repeatedly complain about your opinion of MR.



It is and I think by acknowledging your point I made that clear.



As long as the irony of complaining about my 5 posts criticizing the MANY, MANY posts from the OP and a small handful of other members complaining about MR's moderation is appreciated!

Thus far, there have been 29 posts in this thread.

This thread attempts to address the topic of "Moving Threads to PRSI or Political News" and asks what criteria are used when this is done, and questions the basis on which some such decisions have been arrived at.

However, out of a total of 29 posts, you have posted seven posts (a quarter of the total) suggesting that those who raise concerns - in the appropriate section of the site designed to facilitate such feed-back - should take themselves elsewhere.

With respect, I submit that this is overkill, perhaps excessive, but undoubtedly repetitive.

Moreover, I am not sure that it is appropriate to question the bona fides of members who raise concerns about how rules are interpreted and enforced on this site, when the very function of this corner of the site is to facilitate such discussion.

As for your proposed solution: "Why not leave if you don't like it here" - I respectfully submit that matters may be considerably more nuanced than that. Reducing such discussion to a blunt binary choice between "leave, or stay" misses the point that, sometimes, it is possible to stay, yet advocate for change within the rules, and of the rules.

Therefore, why not attempt to bring about some degree of change - or prompt reflection on the part of the site owner - by drawing attention to concerns that you may have with some rules? For, not all rules stand the test of time, let alone changed circumstances that have brought about radical transformation in both society, and technology.

 

[icanhazmac]

Conversely, we can see how you lie in wait to criticize those who come into this specific forum on several occasions for voicing their feedback, which technically this forum is designed for.

Lie in wait? Hardly, I saw a post from the OP and I responded to it resulting in a conversation which is exactly what this forum is made for, right? Saying that I "lie in wait" lends an unnecessary, predatory label to my posts. We are on opposite ends of this conversation but I would hardly classify my posts as predatory.

As for your proposed solution: "Why not leave if you don't like it here" - I respectfully submit that matters may be considerably more nuanced than that. Reducing such discussion to a blunt binary choice between "leave, or stay" misses the point that, sometimes, it is possible to stay, yet advocate for change within the rules, and of the rules.

Therefore, why not attempt to bring about some degree of change - or prompt reflection on the part of the site owner - by drawing attention to concerns that you may have with some rules? For, not all rules stand the test of time, let alone changed circumstances that have brought about radical transformation in both society, and technology.

I agree in terms of the members here who bring the occasional question before the mods and community. I believe it valid to question members that have a history of calling MR a "cesspool" or "haven for nazis and racists" why they continue to frequent this site if that is their true belief. As yet no one has answered me.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Hoax rule is not being enforced

In the past few months, some forum members have been posting dangerous hoaxes, which is an “instantly bannable” offense according to the Forum Rules. The posts have been reported, but the message from the moderators has been clear. They will not enforce this rule because they supposedly do not...

forums.macrumors.com

There was a long discussion in this ^ thread on that issue.

Moderator Note:

In an effort to keep this thread on topic, let's please not use this thread to relitigate the hoax issue in the above linked thread. Thanks

Given that the issue of "fake news", and indeed, "hoax" posts and threads is an ongoing one, - because of the nature of social media and current socio-political culture - quite candidly, I cannot imagine how it will not be "relitigated" over the coming months.

But, agreed: This particular thread is not necessarily the place to conduct a further disinterring, tentative exploration, or forensic examination, of that topic.

 

[icanhazmac]

However, out of a total of 20 posts, you have posted seven posts (a quarter of the total) suggesting that those who raise concerns - in the appropriate section of the site designed to facilitate such feed-back - should take themselves elsewhere.

The number of posts are reflective of the number of responses I received from at least 3 people participating in this conversation so the overall number is irrelevant, should I not respond to people responding to me? @SuperMatt has 5 posts, @ericgtr12 also has 5 posts, but you didn't mention them, whats your point? Thats conversation.

As for your proposed solution: "Why not leave if you don't like it here" - I respectfully submit that matters may be considerably more nuanced than that. Reducing such discussion to a blunt binary choice between "leave, or stay" misses the point that, sometimes, it is possible to stay, yet advocate for change within the rules, and of the rules.

I 100% agree with you but again some members have a long history of posting really derogatory statements about MR so I thought it valid to ask why they stay here if that is their true impression. Furthermore I never said LEAVE as a cut and dried statement, I suggested that if MR is so toxic to them they might be happier elsewhere so I believe I am addressing this in a somewhat nuanced fashion.

 

[0920872]

Speaking of covid, that the covid threads in community discussions have remained free and clear of political talk shows that it is possible to talk about social issues and largely keep controversial posts out of the mix.

Or you have a sampling bias. Just saying.

 

[0920872]

I agree in terms of the members here who bring the occasional question before the mods and community. I believe it valid to question members that have a history of calling MR a "cesspool" or "haven for nazis and racists" why they continue to frequent this site if that is their true belief. As yet no one has answered me.

Some suckers feel obliged to fight clear DISinformation (I feel obliged to use this term after I was directed to a thread that ensured definition-appropriate use of terminology on this...). Is this answer satisfactory?

 

[WildCowboy]

This thread seems to be largely going in circles, but I'll try to address a bit of the original question from a news perspective.

When we write a story, our editors make a judgment call about whether they expect the discussion to turn in a direction that should be in the Political News forum. When in doubt, they typically lean in favor of leaving it in the regular news forum to allow for maximum participation.

We certainly can't predict the future with absolute certainty, so sometimes that ends up being a poor decision in retrospect, and we end up moving the thread at a later time, usually after the moderators have made some attempt at keeping it in the original forum. And sometimes we simply make the wrong call from the start, either an active decision or by forgetting to specifically consider where the thread should live.

We simply can't have our moderators babysitting a news thread to keep it out of Political News...that's a poor use of moderator resources. If the discussion is clearly going to keep trending that way, it's best to just move the thread. Yes, that means some people who were initially able to participate in the thread will no longer be able to, which is unfortunate if they were involved in non-political/social aspects of the discussion, but every one of these decisions involves weighing pros and cons.

Our hope is that post-publishing news thread moves aren't terribly frequent, and we're trying to be a bit more proactive about putting them in the Political News forum or in some cases even turning off comments entirely, but it's never going to be a perfect process.

 

[0920872]

Our hope is that post-publishing news thread moves aren't terribly frequent, and we're trying to be a bit more proactive about putting them in the Political News forum or in some cases even turning off comments entirely, but it's never going to be a perfect process.

Amen to this and to consistency.

 

[theSeb]

This thread seems to be largely going in circles, but I'll try to address a bit of the original question from a news perspective.

When we write a story, our editors make a judgment call about whether they expect the discussion to turn in a direction that should be in the Political News forum. When in doubt, they typically lean in favor of leaving it in the regular news forum to allow for maximum participation.

We certainly can't predict the future with absolute certainty, so sometimes that ends up being a poor decision in retrospect, and we end up moving the thread at a later time, usually after the moderators have made some attempt at keeping it in the original forum. And sometimes we simply make the wrong call from the start, either an active decision or by forgetting to specifically consider where the thread should live.

We simply can't have our moderators babysitting a news thread to keep it out of Political News...that's a poor use of moderator resources. If the discussion is clearly going to keep trending that way, it's best to just move the thread. Yes, that means some people who were initially able to participate in the thread will no longer be able to, which is unfortunate if they were involved in non-political/social aspects of the discussion, but every one of these decisions involves weighing pros and cons.

Our hope is that post-publishing news thread moves aren't terribly frequent, and we're trying to be a bit more proactive about putting them in the Political News forum or in some cases even turning off comments entirely, but it's never going to be a perfect process.

Are the site staff concerned about the state of this forum when topics like black history month cannot be discussed in a civil manner and are constantly hijacked by very loud and not very subtle white power enthusiasts?

 

[SuperMatt]

Thank you @Weaselboy and @WildCowboy for the detailed explanations.

@theSeb - I agree, it isn’t a good look if every news story involving a PoC has a comments section that gets shut down or moved to PRSI/Political News. It *sounds like* the staff is taking notice of this, and that can only be a good thing for the site.

My take is that, while it might feel like whack-a-mole to chase after posts tinged with racism, it would pay off fairly quickly because we’d find out that there is a small group of people causing most of the problems. Once the “usual suspects” have been stopped, the mods’ jobs might actually get easier.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

Are the site staff concerned about the state of this forum when topics like black history month cannot be discussed in a civil manner and are constantly hijacked by very loud and not very subtle white power enthusiasts?

Don’t worry. It isn’t just Black History Month. We also aren’t able to civilly discuss International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month either.

There’s definitely an opportunity to do better in these regards.

 

[ericgtr12]

Are the site staff concerned about the state of this forum when topics like black history month cannot be discussed in a civil manner and are constantly hijacked by very loud and not very subtle white power enthusiasts?

As long as there's a "there's good and bad people on both sides" mentality this will not change. This site has never addressed these issues directly and people are allowed to sympathize with white supremacy, sexism, etc. as long as they don't break the basic rules and post it using non-offensive language. When one shows outrage, they are then penalized.

At the highest level the leadership of this site is making a deliberate decision to allow such behavior, much of it didn't really come to light until the last few years when this sort of language came out of the woodwork and made it into the mainstream. Times have changed, MR and their rules have not and as a result threads get derailed and cause all sorts of overhead for staff to deal with.

However, for many of us there are areas we can frequent where discussion is less likely to turn political and this site is still great for that. I just turned off PRSI a while back and it's been far more pleasant as a result, I just hate to see these types posts bleeding into basic Apple discussion as well. MR can choose not to allow it at all - in any form - and it would be less of an issue.

 

[bpeeps]

Are the site staff concerned about the state of this forum when topics like black history month cannot be discussed in a civil manner and are constantly hijacked by very loud and not very subtle white power enthusiasts?

No. They’ve repeatedly shown they don’t care.

This is a News thread with references to Black History month, I would say given that, it also belongs in the PRSI forum.

I really hope you understand the implications of what you’re actually saying here.

 

[annk]

...When one shows outrage, they are then penalized...

I think it might be useful to point out the fallacy here. When users break the rules by calling other users names or posting negative personal comments about other users, they are indeed moderated. This is because users agree not to do this when they register.

However, outrage per se is not penalized. It's fine and often instructive for other participants to show outrage or strong disagreement in a thread. Users who do so by focusing on post content make their outrage known in a way that promotes real, civil debate. Responding to the ideas and opinions presented in a post is constructive. Insulting another user is not.

 

[ericgtr12]

I think it might be useful to point out the fallacy here. When users break the rules by calling other users names or posting negative personal comments about other users, they are indeed moderated. This is because users agree not to do this when they register.

However, outrage per se is not penalized. It's fine and often instructive for other participants to show outrage or strong disagreement in a thread. Users who do so by focusing on post content make their outrage known in a way that promotes real, civil debate. Responding to the ideas and opinions presented in a post is constructive. Insulting another user is not.

Let me throw out the hypothetical here (I can point out many like specifics here but understand that's against the rules).

Of the following two, which would be penalized?
"Giving up the seat was about common courtesy, Rosa"
or
"Hey, you're racist"

I think we know the answer here and that's the point I'm trying to make, this site is overrun with this type of talk and frankly it's why PRSI has become a trash pit. Staff here are openly allowing people to be racist instead of putting a stop to it by addressing it at its core.

Additionally, those who make such offensive posts fully understand the system of tattling/goading to get those who disagree to break the rules. I'm sorry but the actual context is almost never taken into consideration, just the technicality.

 

[icanhazmac]

This site has never addressed these issues directly and people are allowed to sympathize with white supremacy, sexism, etc.

At the highest level the leadership of this site is making a deliberate decision to allow such behavior

One facepalm for each equally false and ridiculous statement.

Additionally, those who make such offensive posts fully understand the system of tattling/goading to get those who disagree to break the rules.

You knew the rules when you registered! If you, or others, are so easily triggered into breaking the rules then perhaps you shouldn't participate in debate? When you come to debate bring ideas, not emotions.

 

[SuperMatt]

You knew the rules when you registered!

This thread is not about changing the rules.

The point of this thread and a couple others about inappropriate content on MR forums is actually about how rules are enforced. As @ericgtr12 mentioned, racist posts are supposedly against the rules. In practice though, unless the poster uses the N-word, it’s probably not getting moderated.

Similarly, I laid out the specific rules related to political posts in non-political areas of the site earlier in this thread. And although I appreciate the explanation of the mods as to why such threads are sometimes moved, technically the posters who made political comments broke the rules and could have had their posts removed instead of dragging an entire thread down their personal rabbit hole.

So, I believe @ericgtr12 is not arguing that the rules should be changed. He seems to be arguing, as many others are, that there is an apparent disparity in how certain rules are (or are not) being enforced.

I think such concerns are valid, and I appreciate the response of the staff in this thread. I may not agree with all their decisions, nor they with all my suggestions, but I hope having the discussion improves the site overall.

I believe most people don’t want political discussions in their thread about Apple’s new iPhone, and that almost nobody wants racist posts on the site at all. I know that’s why I brought up this thread and I believe @ericgtr12 is trying to make the same point.