Moving threads to PRSI or Political News

[I7guy]

It seems like this is a recurring discussion point on this site for the last half year in particular and I don't expect it to change any time soon.

It's a shame that things that should be positive are highjacked because so many can only view the world through their politically charged lens. It's a world problem now. Not to say MR doesn't have a role to play in managing this on their own site, but it's not just this site.

It's not always about politics and some people don't know how to discuss civilly.

The editors put stories in the poltics forum because the know from experience where the story is headed. For example a story is posted about Apple donating $10M. Invariably the conversation starts out like this:
- glad apple is using their wealth for good
- but they're cheap, they should be donating $100M and to twice the causes
- well it's because of that hypocritical SJW Tim Cook he should stick to being a CEO
- True he'll discuss [some topic] but leave [some other country] out of it

And so it goes.

Then there seems to be the issue of what is the bar for posts that are deemed racist etc. That topic and the seeming different interpretation of what is racists by the staff vs some posters causes contention as well.

So to your point, and in my opinion, posts that are moved to the poltical forum the editors have experience of what will go south. With a million members there are varied points of view and people forget there is a civil way to discuss things, which has nothing to do with political leanings.

 

[SuperMatt]

It's not always about politics and some people don't know how to discuss civilly.

The editors put stories in the poltics forum because the know from experience where the story is headed. For example a story is posted about Apple donating $10M. Invariably the conversation starts out like this:
- glad apple is using their wealth for good
- but they're cheap, they should be donating $100M and to twice the causes
- well it's because of that hypocritical SJW Tim Cook he should stick to being a CEO
- True he'll discuss [some topic] but leave [some other country] out of it

And so it goes.

Then there seems to be the issue of what is the bar for posts that are deemed racist etc. That topic and the seeming different interpretation of what is racists by the staff vs some posters causes contention as well.

So to your point, and in my opinion, posts that are moved to the poltical forum the editors have experience of what will go south. With a million members there are varied points of view and people forget there is a civil way to discuss things, which has nothing to do with political leanings.

Some folks will take any discussion down the rabbit hole. The mods, IMHO, should take action against those doing it instead of just giving up and dumping the thread elsewhere.

I agree with you on the predictability. If there’s a news story involving a person of color or an LGBTQ+ person, some people will get on there and post racist or anti-gay/trans comments.

It is NOT acceptable that every story involving a non-white, non-straight person should be automatically moved into a political forum.

My suggestion: Kick out the bums who can’t help themselves but attack every person of color and/or LGBTQ+ person. They’re breaking the rules, period. Stop letting them get away with it.

 

[I7guy]

Some folks will take any discussion down the rabbit hole. The mods, IMHO, should take action against those doing it instead of just giving up and dumping the thread elsewhere.

I agree with you on the predictability. If there’s a news story involving a person of color or an LGBTQ+ person, some people will get on there and post racist or anti-gay/trans comments.

It is NOT acceptable that every story involving a non-white, non-straight person should be automatically moved into a political forum.

My suggestion: Kick out the bums who can’t help themselves but attack every person of color and/or LGBTQ+ person. They’re breaking the rules, period. Stop letting them get away with it.

Based on what has been posted by the staff in the past, controversial topics (based on their experience) are moved into the political forum. And a thread doesn't have to involve non-white, non-straight persons for a thread to devolve. An "attack" can take many shapes and forms and moderating them can be a slippery slope.

These are examples of some baseless opinions: (they are baseless because they are a hit and run internet attack)
- Donald Trump is a phony hypocrite
- Barack Obama is a phony hypocrite
- Steve Jobs was a phony hypocrite
- Tim Cook is a phony hypocrite
- Malala Yousafzai is a phony hypocrite

Should all of the above, none of the above, some of the above be moderated if and when reported? Moderation should be fair and even.And these types of generalized negative statements are the ones that can start the downward spiral as you have alluded to.

​

 

[SuperMatt]

Based on what has been posted by the staff in the past, controversial topics (based on their experience) are moved into the political forum. And a thread doesn't have to involve non-white, non-straight persons for a thread to devolve. An "attack" can take many shapes and forms and moderating them can be a slippery slope.

These are examples of some baseless opinions: (they are baseless because they are a hit and run internet attack)
- Donald Trump is a phony hypocrite
- Barack Obama is a phony hypocrite
- Steve Jobs was a phony hypocrite
- Tim Cook is a phony hypocrite
- Malala Yousafzai is a phony hypocrite

Should all of the above, none of the above, some of the above be moderated if and when reported? Moderation should be fair and even.And these types of generalized negative statements are the ones that can start the downward spiral as you have alluded to.

​

In addition to moderating posts targeting people based on their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, the mods can moderate posts for other reasons.

Those posts above are troll posts assuming that’s the full text of the post. If they give reasons, well I might disagree, but at least it is a discussion.

In all of these cases, the solution (IMHO) is NOT to move the thread to political news. It is to moderate the trolls.

 

[I7guy]

In addition to moderating posts targeting people based on their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, the mods can moderate posts for other reasons.

Those posts above are troll posts assuming that’s the full text of the post. If they give reasons, well I might disagree, but at least it is a discussion.

In all of these cases, the solution (IMHO) is NOT to move the thread to political news. It is to moderate the trolls.

The site owner has determined that controversial and charged threads should be separated into Politics and PRSI. So I can’t comment on whether it’s right or not to move those threads, because it’s not my site.

How those threads get to be controversial and how they are moderated is another matter. I posted some example. Some may consider them trolling and some may consider them bad opinions. No matter what these types of comments typically drive up the controversial quotient of a thread. So what should the site do?

Shut down any comment that is controversial? I supposed they could, but that’s another can of worms for the staff to deal with policy decisions that’s even across the board…but that would eliminated good as well as bad comments.

Given the site could ban all political/controversial speech, this seems like a good compromise (moving a thread to the Politics forum); based on their stated policies.

Members of Macrumors are not like-minded (which are most probably different than some other sites that offer political views where the members are like-minded). However, not being like-minded doesn’t mean the posts have to fall afoul of the rules, but it does mean there is controversial material that gets discussed.

 

[SuperMatt]

The site owner has determined that controversial and charged threads should be separated into Politics and PRSI. So I can’t comment on whether it’s right or not to move those threads, because it’s not my site.

How those threads get to be controversial and how they are moderated is another matter. I posted some example. Some may consider them trolling and some may consider them bad opinions. No matter what these types of comments typically drive up the controversial quotient of a thread. So what should the site do?

Shut down any comment that is controversial? I supposed they could, but that’s another can of worms for the staff to deal with policy decisions that’s even across the board…but that would eliminated good as well as bad comments.

Given the site could ban all political/controversial speech, this seems like a good compromise (moving a thread to the Politics forum); based on their stated policies.

Members of Macrumors are not like-minded (which are most probably different than some other sites that offer political views where the members are like-minded). However, not being like-minded doesn’t mean the posts have to fall afoul of the rules, but it does mean there is controversial material that gets discussed.

I am NOT asking to shut down all controversial viewpoints. That is something you are putting forward; perhaps you misunderstood the point of this thread, so let me put it out there again:

I am just asking for the mods to uphold the site rules as they are written. The rules don’t say “make some political comments in a thread about HomePod mini and we’ll move the whole thing to PRSI or Political News for you!” Look at item 6 under “Things not to do”:

Off-topic posts. Off-topic posts will be deleted/edited. If you keep doing it see "Repeated problems" below. Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues and Political News forums, and made only by those eligible for those forums. See the Rules for the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, which apply to the Political News forum as well.

The offending posts, according to these rules, “will be deleted/edited." That is my point; there are rules. We try to abide by them. When some rules aren’t enforced, how can anybody know what other rules do or don’t apply? As I suggested with the hoax rule thread: if you’re not going to enforce a rule, go into the rules and change/delete it to avoid confusion.

I disagree with one other thing you said above:

So I can’t comment on whether it’s right or not to move those threads, because it’s not my site.

This is the SFF. The whole point of it is specifically to comment on whether it’s right or not to move the threads. Presumably those running this site want us to make suggestions, or they wouldn’t have a SFF.

In conclusion: to me, it doesn’t make sense to let people take any random thread down a political rabbit hole and then have the mods move the thread... especially when the rules specifically say that the posts will be deleted/edited instead.

 

[I7guy]

I am NOT asking to shut down all controversial viewpoints. That is something you are putting forward; perhaps you misunderstood the point of this thread, so let me put it out there again:

I am just asking for the mods to uphold the site rules as they are written. The rules don’t say “make some political comments in a thread about HomePod mini and we’ll move the whole thing to PRSI or Political News for you!” Look at item 6 under “Things not to do”:

Maybe the rules should be amended to add that a post may be moved at the staff's discretion to the political forum. That would be my feedback to the staff in S&FF.

The offending posts, according to these rules, “will be deleted/edited." That is my point; there are rules. We try to abide by them. When some rules aren’t enforced, how can anybody know what other rules do or don’t apply? As I suggested with the hoax rule thread: if you’re not going to enforce a rule, go into the rules and change/delete it to avoid confusion.

So in a thread about Malala Yousafzai (as an example of one that was actually made) making a snide remark about Malala Yousafzai should be moderated? Whose yardstick of offending post is being used? Which is a rhetorical question because the moderators/staffs discretion is being used. But it's clear there are differences of opinions when it comes to moderation. And when it comes to pass that a topic becomes controversial rather than moderate an entire thread, moving it to the Political forum makes sense. Which brings me back to the moderators should add that appropriate verbiage to the wiki.

I disagree with one other thing you said above:


This is the SFF. The whole point of it is specifically to comment on whether it’s right or not to move the threads. Presumably those running this site want us to make suggestions, or they wouldn’t have a SFF.

In conclusion: to me, it doesn’t make sense to let people take any random thread down a political rabbit hole and then have the mods move the thread... especially when the rules specifically say that the posts will be deleted/edited instead.

It makes sense to move a thread if an error in judgement is initially made about if a thread should initially be placed in the Politics forum to begin with. Just document it, so there is no confusion about how threads are sometimes managed.

 

[AutomaticApple]

So in a thread about Malala Yousafzai (as an example of one that was actually made) making a snide remark about Malala Yousafzai should be moderated?

How was that remark perfectly okay in the first place?

 

[I7guy]

How was that remark perfectly okay in the first place?

Those examples I posted should be moderated the same way (either all or nothing), without regard to the person. I think of those examples as hit and run. Are they bad opinions without any supporting examples? Trolling? Or even good opinions without supporting examples. Either way they tend to bring out the controversial side of a conversation and contribute to why a thread ends up in the Political Forum. That's an example of where moderation should be fair and even.

 

[SuperMatt]

So in a thread about Malala Yousafzai (as an example of one that was actually made) making a snide remark about Malala Yousafzai should be moderated? Whose yardstick of offending post is being used? Which is a rhetorical question because the moderators/staffs discretion is being used. But it's clear there are differences of opinions when it comes to moderation. And when it comes to pass that a topic becomes controversial rather than moderate an entire thread, moving it to the Political forum makes sense. Which brings me back to the moderators should add that appropriate verbiage to the wiki.

You are focusing on a specific post that perhaps some liked and others disliked. It feels like you are redirecting this thread into something you want to talk about. That’s fine; it’s a free country, but I am just pointing it out, and staying on-topic is also something the forum rules dictate that we should do.

If you want to talk about controversial comments in general, I humbly request that you start a new thread.

As I said earlier, this thread is not intended to be about controversial comments in general. It’s about consistent enforcement of the rules. Inserting politics in non-political threads is against the rules, and posts “will be deleted/edited.” Entire threads are being moved instead, which then takes away the ability for some people to continue a discussion they were involved with, through no fault of their own.

Maybe somebody wanted to further discuss the HomePod mini... oops too bad. Racist trolls took a dump in the thread and instead of cleaning up the ?, they moved the thread to the sewer. Maybe they can start a new HomePod mini thread and they’ll get lucky and the trolls won’t hijack their new thread with the assistance of the mods.

As for these comments:

Maybe the rules should be amended to add that a post may be moved at the staff's discretion to the political forum. That would be my feedback to the staff in S&FF.

It makes sense to move a thread if an error in judgement is initially made about if a thread should initially be placed in the Politics forum to begin with. Just document it, so there is no confusion about how threads are sometimes managed.

I don’t think this is the best solution, but I respect and appreciate the suggestion: if they’re not enforcing the current rules, then please change the rules to avoid confusion.

 

[I7guy]

You are focusing on a specific post that perhaps some liked and others disliked. It feels like you are redirecting this thread into something you want to talk about. That’s fine; it’s a free country, but I am just pointing it out, and staying on-topic is also something the forum rules dictate that we should do.

If you want to talk about controversial comments in general, I humbly request that you start a new thread.

As I said earlier, this thread is not intended to be about controversial comments in general. It’s about consistent enforcement of the rules. Inserting politics in non-political threads is against the rules, and posts “will be deleted/edited.” Entire threads are being moved instead, which then takes away the ability for some people to continue a discussion they were involved with, through no fault of their own.

Maybe somebody wanted to further discuss the HomePod mini... oops too bad. Racist trolls took a dump in the thread and instead of cleaning up the ?, they moved the thread to the sewer. Maybe they can start a new HomePod mini thread and they’ll get lucky and the trolls won’t hijack their new thread with the assistance of the mods.

As for these comments:





I don’t think this is the best solution, but I respect and appreciate the suggestion: if they’re not enforcing the current rules, then please change the rules to avoid confusion.

Thanks for the feedback for the suggestion to amend the rules. Some clarity would probably help with future questions regarding this topic.

The entire scenario is intertwined however. If one's contention is, instead of moving a thread, enforce the rules and if one says the rules aren't being enforced, what does that mean and that is what I was trying to clarify.

Who is determining if rules aren't being enforced? And how does one stop legitimate discourse on all sides and who is determining if something is controversial?

Or alternatively start to do what the editors are already doing? Which is to disable comments.

I think the best way to approach is, is through some verbiage in the TOS, so those who actually read the TOS understand better the management style of MacRumors and what is expected for the participants. I don't think the editors should be criticized for a misjudgement about which forum a news thread ends up in.

 

[SuperMatt]

Thanks for the feedback for the suggestion to amend the rules. Some clarity would probably help with future questions regarding this topic.

The entire scenario is intertwined however. If one's contention is, instead of moving a thread, enforce the rules and if one says the rules aren't being enforced, what does that mean and that is what I was trying to clarify.

Who is determining if rules aren't being enforced? And how does one stop legitimate discourse on all sides and who is determining if something is controversial?

Or alternatively start to do what the editors are already doing? Which is to disable comments.

I think the best way to approach is, is through some verbiage in the TOS, so those who actually read the TOS understand better the management style of MacRumors and what is expected for the participants. I don't think the editors should be criticized for a misjudgement about which forum a news thread ends up in.

The 2 items are not intertwined.

1. If the post(s) are “political” enough to move the thread, then they should instead be deleted/edited per the rules.

2. As for what posts are too “political” for the regular forum, that’s a different issue, and up to the mods’ discretion. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to get into the weeds on that.

 

[I7guy]

The 2 items are not intertwined.

1. If the post(s) are “political” enough to move the thread, then they should instead be deleted/edited per the rules.

2. As for what posts are too “political” for the regular forum, that’s a different issue, and up to the mods’ discretion. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to get into the weeds on that.

Your preference of *not* moving posts to the political forum, while a valid request, may not work for Macrumors for all of the intertwined reasons I mentioned, which, imo belong in this thread discussion. If there is disagreement, I'm assuming I will see some posts moderated; and I will move forward accordingly.
- Mistakes happen - and adding verbiage in the TOS would clarify that process
- Enforcing the rules is a "discretionary" process; there are many shades of grey in making a determination of whether something needs enforcing.
- PRSI as noted by @chown33 but that could take 10 years or more. It was not noted the political forum is going away.
- There has been no official response that I can find...so a few possibilities exist:
a. staff is discussing this and hasn't responded
b. staff isn't discussing this, but hasn't responded
c. staff made a decision, but hasn't responded
d. staff is watching this thread to see where the conversation is headed before deciding if to discuss or not
e. staff is discussing eliminating the political forum and would lock any topic that could generate controversial posts

If the staff was more diligent and moved any news item they feel generates controversial posts automatically into the Politiical forum, that would be additional feedback about why so many threads end up in the Political forum.

 

[SuperMatt]

It’s happened again:

Apple Launches Employee Program for COVID-19 Vaccinations

Apple is launching a program that will provide COVID-19 vaccinations to its employees at Apple offices, reports Bloomberg. Apple is teaming up with Walgreens Boots Alliance to provide the shots, and employees will be able to sign up on a website that Apple will soon roll out. Apple in March...

forums.macrumors.com

Please, what is “political” about Apple getting vaccines for its workers? The discussion could be about how this might affect how soon Apple events are in-person instead of virtual, or if being back to work in person will accelerate development of Apple products, etc, etc.

Instead, once again, something that could be reasonably discussed without any politics at all is tossed into “Political News” so that people can grind axes over it. The discussion is not about Apple at all... completely off-topic.

 

[WildCowboy]

I don't know that any answer will satisfy you, since we keep going around and around with this, but again, that thread is a prime example of why we do put stories like this in Political News.

If our moderators were to babysit the thread 24/7, is it possible it could be kept narrowly focused on the logistics of rolling out vaccinations at Apple? Possibly, but it would require a massive amount of effort that would largely just result in effectively cutting off discussion as there isn't much to talk about if you limit it to a laser focus.

Discussion about whether companies can and/or should require vaccinations is a very natural and reasonable direction for a thread like this to go, but given the controversy over it, there's no doubt it belongs in Political News.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

I don't know that any answer will satisfy you, since we keep going around and around with this, but again, that thread is a prime example of why we do put stories like this in Political News.

If our moderators were to babysit the thread 24/7, is it possible it could be kept narrowly focused on the logistics of rolling out vaccinations at Apple? Possibly, but it would require a massive amount of effort that would largely just result in effectively cutting off discussion as there isn't much to talk about if you limit it to a laser focus.

Discussion about whether companies can and/or should require vaccinations is a very natural and reasonable direction for a thread like this to go, but given the controversy over it, there's no doubt it belongs in Political News.

Are you saying that there is no space at MacRumors for a discussion on the logistics of rolling out vaccinations at Apple and how that would affect their events and stores? Since it would require a massive amount of effort from the mods?

If so – and I'm not sure how else one could read your second paragraph – that's a shame.

 

[SuperMatt]

I don't know that any answer will satisfy you, since we keep going around and around with this, but again, that thread is a prime example of why we do put stories like this in Political News.

If our moderators were to babysit the thread 24/7, is it possible it could be kept narrowly focused on the logistics of rolling out vaccinations at Apple? Possibly, but it would require a massive amount of effort that would largely just result in effectively cutting off discussion as there isn't much to talk about if you limit it to a laser focus.

Discussion about whether companies can and/or should require vaccinations is a very natural and reasonable direction for a thread like this to go, but given the controversy over it, there's no doubt it belongs in Political News.

I suppose you are right - if it started in Political News to begin with, then I understand that criticism doesn’t belong in this thread, which was about threads starting in a regular forum and getting moved to PRSI or Political News.

It’s certainly not the mods’ fault that vaccines became political in America, but it is a shame and I guess there aren’t enough mods to keep up with something like that?

 

[I7guy]

Are you saying that there is no space at MacRumors for a discussion on the logistics of rolling out vaccinations at Apple and how that would affect their events and stores? Since it would require a massive amount of effort from the mods?

If so – and I'm not sure how else one could read your second paragraph – that's a shame.

If people would stay on-topic and keep the controversial posts out of the threads, a good discussion could be had about how Apple is implementing a covid-19 vaccination program. What wildcowboy was not saying, is there is no space at MacRumors for such a discussion, but rather, threads like that tend to go off the rails and thus end up in the Politics forum.

That particular thread was shut-down, cleaned up and then reopened.

 

[SuperMatt]

If people would stay on-topic and keep the controversial posts out of the threads, a good discussion could be had about how Apple is implementing a covid-19 vaccination program. What wildcowboy was not saying, is there is no space at MacRumors for such a discussion, but rather, threads like that tend to go off the rails and thus end up in the Politics forum.

That particular thread was shut-down, cleaned up and then reopened.

This is a shame, and I wish the mods had the resources to shut down the folks who continuously hijack these things instead of giving in to them. But they claim they do not, and with the large number of users on MR, perhaps they are right.

 

[WildCowboy]

Are you saying that there is no space at MacRumors for a discussion on the logistics of rolling out vaccinations at Apple and how that would affect their events and stores? Since it would require a massive amount of effort from the mods?

If so – and I'm not sure how else one could read your second paragraph – that's a shame.

Sure, there's room for a thread on that, but don't be surprised when it evolves to include broader topics.

There's also a difference between news threads and other types of threads, simply due to visibility. A typical thread from a regular user stands a better chance of remaining more tightly focused due to the relatively small audience that sees it. A news thread is going to attract a much broader audience that will frequently take the discussion in all sorts of directions.

 

[nicho]

don't know that any answer will satisfy you, since we keep going around and around with this, but again, that thread is a prime example of why we do put stories like this in Political News.

I wonder if the naming of the forum - Political News - is part of the reason for the disagreement?


OP complains about threads being moved to Political News or Political, Religious, Social Issues forums. To take the first page of the thread, OP says it isn't political and mods explain that a thread was moved to PRSI because of Social Issues. Makes sense. It's in the name.

But the same reasoning is seemingly used on moving threads to Political News. I can't think of a name that encompasses 'Social Issues' without being wordy, but maybe a name change would clarify things.

 

[ipponrg]

I wonder if the naming of the forum - Political News - is part of the reason for the disagreement?


OP complains about threads being moved to Political News or Political, Religious, Social Issues forums. To take the first page of the thread, OP says it isn't political and mods explain that a thread was moved to PRSI because of Social Issues. Makes sense. It's in the name.

But the same reasoning is seemingly used on moving threads to Political News. I can't think of a name that encompasses 'Social Issues' without being wordy, but maybe a name change would clarify things.

I believe the issue is that social issues almost always turn out political. If you read the PRSI threads, it’s rather easy for certain individuals to add politics based on your social issue alignment. You can’t really have conversations about this in an open forum because there is a lot of bullying / mob mentalities that goes on for these topics

 

[Weaselboy]

Moderator Note:

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

Quite a few posts discussing the hoax rule have been removed as off-topic. That issue was discussed at length in the above linked thread and is not going to be relitigated in this thread.

 

[bpeeps]

It is NOT acceptable that every story involving a non-white, non-straight person should be automatically moved into a political forum.

SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS NOT LISTENING IN THE BACK!

 

[AutomaticApple]

Moderator Note:

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

Quite a few posts discussing the hoax rule have been removed as off-topic. That issue was discussed at length in the above linked thread and is not going to be relitigated in this thread.

That thread is locked.