PRSI Forum discussion

[I7guy]

"It" was inevitable. All of the wrong buttons were being pushed for no reason than to be argumentative.

 

[tgara]

I don't think you can reach those conclusions without reading the 7 or 8 comments that preceded the comment I responded to. They were far more explicit in their support for white supremacist ideals. Part of my frustration and why I responded as I did, was that those comments remained in the thread for over a day without apparent moderation.

When it comes to something like support for white supremacy, I think that Justice Brandeis had the right idea when he said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Behind-the-scenes moderation of that sort of thing just hides the fact that we have a member who holds such abhorrent views.

When someone posts repeatedly about the decimation of the culture of white people due to the infestation of brown people, I'm not going to ignore it. If that violates the rules and means that I'm permanently banned from the discussion, so be it.

Which is why, as I have said here, that rule should be changed. If I had simply reported the posts (as I later did), they would have been removed and the poster would have been suspended and later allowed to continue posting. I think that people should be made aware of the fact that posters have these sorts of views, instead of just hiding the problem.

As has been pointed out to you several times, if you have an issue with a post someone made, report it. It's not your job to decide what is appropriate or not. That's for the moderators.

Your issue is that you responded in an insulting and personal way which violated the rules, and I might add, without knowing a thing about the member to whom you were responding. Again, just because you conclude that someone is a racist or white supremacist based a few posts on an internet chat board doesn't make them one, as was the case here. If what someone says offends you, put that person on your ignore list.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I do hope this is on topic...

I spent some time today joining threads in PRSI and reading tons of PRSI threads to better understand the complaints in this thread, something I don't usually do. I see that there is a new suspension in this thread as well...

Anyway, back to my "test", I made a handful of posts in PRSI... I do think that there is a large majority of people who do not identify with my political views in the PRSI forum and when I did state my views, there were a lot of questionable posts, some possibly reportable imo (I do not / will not report posts in PRSI especially for the purposes of this test).

I could see how if I replied to these posts in even a tiny bit of a similar kind, I could be reported and banned myself. So I didn't even try to seriously go after statements because it was a test afterall.

I don't know how to put this in a way that goes into PRSI territory, but in the context of my test --- you definitely have to have thick skin to be a regular in PRSI and not be affected when people make really childish outlandish and (imo) wrong statements about ______ or about people who support ______ and yet the replies need to be civil. That isn't easy (at least for me).

Being a mod definitely can't be easy because to take the time to look at the context has to be incredibly time consuming. I don't envy their thankless job.

That and PRSI is definitely not for me. Though my lack of self control means that this won't be the last time I post there. :/

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

The problem with a political discussion on an international forum is the cultural differences between posters. The focus within threads is often American-centric due to there being more Americans here than most, but quite often there are Europeans and other nationalities joining in. I can only comment on my own countrymen but we are often more liberal and less religious. This means topics can get heated rather quickly and it’s inevitable that neither side can see the others point of view. It’s just down to us to deliver our opinions in a tactful manner without resorting to name calling etc.

 

[I7guy]

Point proved in these threads, some want to right a perceived wrong, consequences be damned. And as the discussion went, the consequences were loss of privilege posting in PRSI. Another one seemingly wanted to stick it to "the man" by being provoking and argumentative. IMO, if a constructive discussion can't be had here, in more or less a safe space, these forum members (the over the top ones), probably won't be able to comport themselves elsewhere.

 

[S.B.G]

I was thinking the other day after reading a post somewhere in this thread, of a potential solution to the PRSI debate.

Since the mods largely do not visit, browse or otherwise participate in PRSI threads because they're not interested and only do so when they have to handle a report, I had an idea.

If everyone who participates or lurks in PRSI stops reporting posts in there, then the mods wouldn't have to intervene and no one would get into trouble.

That's probably too simple of a solution though.

 

[OllyW]

That's probably too simple of a solution though.

An even simpler solution would be for all the PRSI posters to follow the Rules For Appropriate Debate...

These rules and guidelines describe the acceptable and unacceptable ways to participate in a discussion in a MacRumors forum thread. These rules augment and clarify the general Forum Rules. Guidelines indicate the spirit of the rules. The Rules for Appropriate Debate are especially applicable to threads where there are strong or conflicting opinions, such as certain types of news and rumors discussions and debates in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum.

Respect

Guidelines: Show respect for your fellow posters. Expect and accept that other users may have strongly held opinions that differ from yours. In other words, basic human courtesy.

Rules:

1. Name-calling. Name-calling falls into the category of insults and will be treated as such according to the forum rules, your own opinion about another member notwithstanding. You can't call a bigot a bigot, a troll a troll, or a fanboy a fanboy, any more than you can call an idiot an idiot. You can disagree with the content of another member's statement or give your evidence or opinion to dispute their claims, but you may not make a negative personal characterization about that member.
2. Insults. Slurs and insults against groups of people based on negative-stereotyping and obvious generalizations fall into the category of trolling and will be treated as such.
3. Taunting. Mocking or taunting another forum member is not acceptable. Posts that ridicule another member or obviously exaggerate or misstate their views may be removed.

Debate

Guidelines: Be willing to engage in fact-based, constructive debate. Look for ways to inform and learn from others.

Rules:

1. Sources. If you claim that something's a fact, back it up with a source. If you can't produce evidence when someone asks you to cite your sources, we may remove your posts. If you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.
2. Repetition. If you repeat the same claims without adding new information, we might remove your posts. Again, if you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.
3. Trolling. Posts that appear to be designed to cause argument or irritate rather than contribute to a constructive discussion are considered trolling and will be treated as such.
4. Duplicate discussions. If a new thread repeats a topic that has been previously discussed or debated, without basis for a separate discussion, the thread may be closed, removed, or merged into an earlier thread on the same topic. A news report on a previously discussed issue doesn't automatically deserve a new thread.

Moderation

Guidelines: Stay within the forum rules to preserve your membership privileges.

Rules:

1. Reporting. Members should report posts to call the moderators' attention to troublesome posts/posters.
2. Responsibility. You're responsible for your own behavior. "I was goaded into breaking the rules" is not an excuse. If you think a post is inappropriate, report it, ignore it, and/or respond without breaking the rules.
3. Suspensions. Forum members whose posts are removed for violating these rules may be subject to temporary or permanent account suspension (bans), particularly for repeated or serious rules violations.

Be sure to read our 2011 and 2017 announcements about moderation of the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The problem with a political discussion on an international forum is the cultural differences between posters. The focus within threads is often American-centric due to there being more Americans here than most, but quite often there are Europeans and other nationalities joining in. I can only comment on my own countrymen but we are often more liberal and less religious. This means topics can get heated rather quickly and it’s inevitable that neither side can see the others point of view. It’s just down to us to deliver our opinions in a tactful manner without resorting to name calling etc.

I think that this is an excellent point.

Until I started teaching kids from different countries - a few years into my teaching career - I had no idea that the terms "right" and "left" (even though I taught politics and history for a living) were interpreted so differently in different countries.

I had to explain to my own students (once I got it myself) that "right" and "left" are not only understood differently in different countries - as are religion, the right to bear arms - but so are their respective places on the respective political spectrums; i.e. right may be more or less right on a given spectrum than it is elsewhere, while left, likewise, may not always lie in the exact same place, or anywhere near it.

For example: In the US - to my stupefaction - even prisons in some cases were privatised; in my part of the world, western Europe, the debate between 'left' and 'right' - and thus, election campaigns - often devolved into how much of the areas of health, housing and education the govt should supply - police and military and prisons were not even discussed - whereas the degree of government intervention in the economy - by way of taxation, fines, incentives, or public ownership - continued to be contentious.

In the former eastern Europe, even the most ardent anti-Communist and nationalist of voters had been used to a world where government supplied 24 hour running hot water and heating and were outraged when this was withdrawn as former communist governments had to pay world prices for oil that had formerly been subsidised; my response was that in my country even the most left wing of voters considered it perfectly normal to purchase a tank full of oil every so often so that you could heat your water and house - they did not see that - remotely - as a function of government - all bought home to me that different societies had different understandings of what was meant by the terms 'left' and 'right'.

And, I agree with @The-Real-Deal82 on the matter of religion: This, too, - along with the word 'freedom' - seems to have a different connotation on either side of the Atlantic.

In western Europe, (Eastern Europe was different because of the nature of Soviet Communist rule) when discussing religion, and freedom, the concept of freedom (liberalism) was linked with the concept of religion as the concept of freedom from religion, the right not to have religious considerations determine, define or rule public policy or your private life.

The United States, on the other hand, emerged from different roots: There, the concept of freedom (liberty) was intertwined with religion to the extent of viewing it as freedom to practice a faith - freedom to be religious and to have religion form your world view - that had been prohibited or suppressed elsewhere.

And these differences are things we need to understand, as there are very significant cultural differences - and differences in how terms that are thought to be common to both worlds are actually understood - between the United States and - at the very least - western Europe.

 

[Videomanmac]

An even simpler solution would be for all the PRSI posters to follow the Rules For Appropriate Debate...

I still fail to see even after those posted rules how I’m justified in being banned from there. Still awaiting an admin response (which I know they are busy folks)

So yes, some posters do follow the rules.

 

[LizKat]

It shows suspended under the username if a user is suspended

Sure does. Sometimes it even means "banned". But you know, that's not really a badge of honor unless one's into martyrdom. Or even so it's a posthumous honor. You can attend your own wake, so to speak... but you can't party down with the guys at the bar who are wakin' ya.

Back to my summer beach reads. Detective series are great, the bodies keep piling up and yet it's just one iced tea after another. I'm starting to like the idea of leaving PRSI to the hotheads.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Sure does. Sometimes it even means "banned". But you know, that's not really a badge of honor unless one's into martyrdom. Or even so it's a posthumous honor. You can attend your own wake, so to speak... but you can't party down with the guys at the bar who are wakin' ya.

Back to my summer beach reads. Detective series are great, the bodies keep piling up and yet it's just one iced tea after another. I'm starting to like the idea of leaving PRSI to the hotheads.

Ever read Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy (Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played With Fire, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest?)

I recommend them. Actually, I couldn't put them down.

 

[scottcampbell]

I would love it if PRSI topics were excluded from the "Latest Replies" sidebar, or if I was given the option to exclude forums from that sidebar.

 

[samiwas]

But the blatant abuse of power by the moderators here shouldn’t be accepted. I’m fine with people being banned who violate the rules, but many conservatives are banned on weak grounds here.

People. You meant "so many people". Liberals are banned just as much. Almost none of the liberal posters from a few years ago are left. They have all been banned...well before their conservative counterparts. You're arguing a false narrative.

 

[Videomanmac]

People. You meant "so many people". Liberals are banned just as much. Almost none of the liberal posters from a few years ago are left. They have all been banned...well before their conservative counterparts. You're arguing a false narrative.

My narrative has changed that both sides are being banned on weak grounds as well.

 

[LizKat]

Well we could all just try being civil for awhile and see what happens. Sorta like when mom's great-aunt comes to dinner now and then, and we just have to apply a tad of self-censorship for a couple hours, even though from her politics we know darn well she's a #feckless... And no excuses. Not even the well known "C'mon mom, you know I just got out of boot camp".

 

[throAU]

But - and this is what some of the more abrasive proponents of the First Amendment (and perhaps other amendments, also) don't get: There is a difference between heated debate and personal and offensive insult, and I think some of the proponents of "free" speech fail to draw this distinction.

There is a difference between making an argument, debating it, discussing it, rebutting and refuting an argument, and seeking to insult or offend the person putting that argument forward.

they’re words

people get offended because they are looking to be outraged.

if you don’t like the words, ignore them.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

they’re words

people get offended because they are looking to be outraged.

if you don’t like the words, ignore them.

There is a difference here, and it is often one of intent.

Besides, I think that there is a considerable difference between making on an argument - and disagreeing with someone - and insulting or seeking to offend the person making it. And sometimes, that is done deliberately.

And the other thing is, words aren't always neutral.

Certain words carry the sting of history, and the weighted baggage of having been an oppressed minority - where the very fact of having been a part of that minority or group was a cause for insult and offence, and the words used to say this offended as a consequence and were meant to - especially if the 'word' used to offend and insult draws attention to something you are, - your ethnicity, your gender, the fact that you are gay - rather than what you say, or have done, or the argument you make.

And while some individuals do seek reasons to be offended, others quite deliberately seek to inflame, insult, and offend.

If you want an argument, a discussion, a debate, that is one thing; if you want to get into a situation where you merely trade insults, I would suggest that the school yard is the best place for that.

 

[MacNut]

Translation: You're okay with moderators banning people, as long as it's not you and your conservatives.

Let’s not forget it’s the conservative members that are the first to hit the report button when something anti-Trump is said.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Let’s not forget it’s the conservative members that are the first to hit the report button when something anti-Trump is said.

Really? I’m genuinely curious if this statement is true. I consider myself conservative but rarely hit the “report” button, and haven’t for a long time especially in PRSI - Mods can verify this.

I am very curious to see if this is true. Maybe the mods can give a yes/no?

 

[Videomanmac]

Well, every since I got banned - I’ve been hitting the report button like crazy. Before I got banned, I did report, but it was few and far between. I didn’t even report Richard’s “Don’t be an idiot” post!

PRSI has certainly became a Trump hating cesspool since the mods have wiped out the conservatives there. Which is simply not acceptable. They have achieved what they wanted.
[doublepost=1530976393][/doublepost]

Let’s not forget it’s the conservative members that are the first to hit the report button when something anti-Trump is said.

And Fox News must offend most, so your point you’re trying to make is moot.

 

[S.B.G]

Let’s not forget it’s the conservative members that are the first to hit the report button when something anti-Trump is said.

Really? I’m genuinely curious if this statement is true. I consider myself conservative but rarely hit the “report” button, and haven’t for a long time especially in PRSI - Mods can verify this.

I am very curious to see if this is true. Maybe the mods can give a yes/no?

In my experience on staff I never looked at or gave a **** about who (left or right) made a report. Most of the time when I handled a report from PRSI I let out a sigh and thought to myself, ****, another PRSI report?

Here's the thing that I did notice and found especially true when it came to PRSI reports. Many (from both sides), but not all, PRSI users like to instigate others and push the limits of the rules and find unique ways of skating under them yet still making a trollish or insulting post. Then, when the other person sees it, gets pissed off and reports it or responds in kind and steps over the line and gets moderated. A win for the other person who slipped a trollish comment under the rules and got away with it.

There is an awful lot of arguing by proxy that goes on in PRSI. There are some of you (not necessarily you two I quoted here) who absolutely love to argue and use the moderators to fight their battles via moderation and suspensions. They poke the bear and then run and hide behind a rock and tell someone in a tank when the bear comes attacking for being poked and then the person in the tank has to blow the bear away.

It's very difficult for the staff to moderate consistently and effectively applying the rules fairly when so many people ride the fine line trying to get away with their poor behavior.

Frankly, its ****ing annoying as hell and no matter what the moderator does in a lot of these situations, they're the bad guys because either they took action and one side gets mad for it, or they choose to take no action and the other side gets pissed because the post(s) remain.

Many, again not all, of PRSI users really make life hard for the staff and their political opponents.

 

[Videomanmac]

In my experience on staff I never looked at or gave a **** about who (left or right) made a report. Most of the time when I handled a report from PRSI I let out a sigh and thought to myself, ****, another PRSI report?

Here's the thing that I did notice and found especially true when it came to PRSI reports. Many (from both sides), but not all, PRSI users like to instigate others and push the limits of the rules and find unique ways of skating under them yet still making a trollish or insulting post. Then, when the other person sees it, gets pissed off and reports it or responds in kind and steps over the line and gets moderated. A win for the other person who slipped a trollish comment under the rules and got away with it.

There is an awful lot of arguing by proxy that goes on in PRSI. There are some of you (not necessarily you two I quoted here) who absolutely love to argue and use the moderators to fight their battles via moderation and suspensions. They poke the bear and then run and hide behind a rock and tell someone in a tank when the bear comes attacking for being poked and then the person in the tank has to blow the bear away.

It's very difficult for the staff to moderate consistently and effectively applying the rules fairly when so many people ride the fine line trying to get away with their poor behavior.

Frankly, its ****ing annoying as hell and no matter what the moderator does in a lot of these situations, they're the bad guys because either they took action and one side gets mad for it, or they choose to take no action and the other side gets pissed because the post(s) remain.

Many, again not all, of PRSI users really make life hard for the staff and their political opponents.

I peopose two solutions.
1) completely shut down PRSI
2) Make it an unmoderated forum.

It doesn’t have to be hard for staff if they take one of my two proposals.

 

[S.B.G]

I peopose two solutions.
1) completely shut down PRSI
2) Make it an unmoderated forum.

It doesn’t have to be hard for staff if they take one of my two proposals.

1. Arn has stated that it will not go away
2. Doing that will cause a hell of a lot more problems than you think will

 

[OllyW]

In my experience on staff I never looked at or gave a **** about who (left or right) made a report. Most of the time when I handled a report from PRSI I let out a sigh and thought to myself, ****, another PRSI report?

Nothing has changed since you left the mod team.

 

[Videomanmac]

1. Arn has stated that it will not go away
2. Doing that will cause a hell of a lot more problems than you think will

Arn can change his mind. And what problems will arise?
[doublepost=1530977415][/doublepost]

Nothing has changed since you left the mod team.

Simple solution, don’t moderate PRSI and let us deal with things like big boys and girls.