Please show me in the faq where you get to abuse your privilege of posting on this site. Simple solution, start your own website and create your own rules. Easy-peasy.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
PRSI Forum discussion
- Thread starter ericgtr12
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I think removing any mod action on PRSI would make it much much worse of a place. Probably the worse of two weevils (removing modding, shutting down PRSI). Neither favorable.
Last edited:
Well to be fair there are posters who engage in civil discussions. Then there are those who don’t.
Since, so it seems, the mods don’t go into PRSI unless the report button is pressed, report the posts you think violate the rules. There are way to many posts to catch every violation. A violation is a violation, no matter what your political leanings.
@BigMcGuire is about the only consistent person in PRSI that engage in civil discussions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Moderator Note
If you want this thread kept open, stop moving the discussion into politics.
If you want this thread kept open, stop moving the discussion into politics.
You are engaging in a similar behavior to the other poster, which is jabbing the bear. I can name a few posters in PRSI that engage in civil discourse. Some engage in discourse with a nasty, condescending tone. The. There are those who knowingly walk the fine line and/or cross it. It may be maddening to report those posts only to have the reply come back with “no action required”. For the short time I’ve been here I’ve noticed that posters who consistently walk that fine line ultimately get their just deserts. The moderation policies as setup here do work.
I’m not sure if where you want to be at the end of this. Your suspension probably is not going to be lifted. The thread could be closed down. The innuendo and finger pointed will go nowhere. What do you want to achieve?
So why not go after the instigators who poke the bear. Seems like the solution is to cut the snakes head off first.
The only person innocent in this thread is BigMcGuire, and the mods. You are just as guilty as I am, so don’t even.
I want the administrators to justify the mods reasoning for banning me (and others) for no good reason. That’s all I want. Once the administrators start communicating with us, I will be happy and very likely shut up. Because right now, no communication from the administrators either on here or that contact form.
The brutal truth is I’m not the one with the suspension nor am I poking the bear. Nor am I creating a ruckus in this thread.
The report button is available to all who think posts violate the faqs.
Don't think that they don't. If you could see some of the conversations we (staff) have had in post reports trying to decide if some of these instigators posts were technically breaking the rules, you'd have a better understanding of how hard that is. Trying to balance the letter of the law (rules) and interpreting the posts intent with excruciatingly and even nauseating attention to detail, debating word for word and even punctuation trying to decide if a post or series of posts by a user is so very hard.
That's why sometimes reported posts take a while before action is taken, if any. I am not kidding when I say that either. That kind of attention to minute detail happens often in the back room because some of these PRSI users are very slick in how they make their posts.
It's also why you see the mods talk about how they rarely, if not ever frequent that forum for personal reasons. Its why I stated earlier that when I'd handle a PRSI report, I was like ****, another one? Sheesh.
Last edited:
Most of us have it blocked so the crap posted there doesn’t pollute our feeds.
Here’s my proposal. Have the PRSI moderated from within with an equal number of left and right posters and the merits of a post can be decided by those that know the posters best. So there is no political bias have a rotating staff so nobody gets complacent.
[doublepost=1530983548][/doublepost]P.S. there are still plenty of snakes that have roamed for years and continue too.
[doublepost=1530983548][/doublepost]P.S. there are still plenty of snakes that have roamed for years and continue too.
Sounds good on paper but we all know in practice it wouldn't work.
Who gets to choose those people? How are they vetted on fairness, how about their political fairness? Both sides will still call foul on these people when they get into trouble. They will always call bias no matter what or who. To some of them there is no impartial person.
The rules need to be simplified. There is far to much minutia currently. Either a post is personal insulting or it isn’t. Trolling seems to be something that can’t be explained in a reasonable way. I could pull 50 trolling threads and posts but those go untouched. Let’s get some solid guidelines that everyone knows are trolling. Currently it seems like a 50/50 dice roll. This 3 strikes you’re out even though a few are balls rule isn’t working.
I don't disagree with you.
The staff are always open to good suggestions. Perhaps you might even take a copy of the current trolling rules, write up a draft of what you think would be better and submit it for consideration.
It’s been brought up in the past and something I continue to argue for. A panel of members to be invited into the discussion as an advisory board.
Anything is possible.
I can say though, that they aren't going to let just anyone into the back room, even in an advisory capacity as you suggest.
But an idea for them to consider, if they choose to entertain this notion, would be for them to create a whole new forum and only allow a select few into it as the advisory panel for the purposes of discussing rule sets. If I were still on staff, I would support that idea. (Of course I would! It was my idea!
)The bigger question though is who gets selected and how are they chosen?
Members have to be active for at least 6 months. A pool of veterans and newcomers who each might have different experiences on the site. Try the get people who have different interests and explore different areas. Don’t narrow it to just PRSI or iPhone forums. A lot of people have different hangouts here and I’m sure each have issues.Anything is possible.
I can say though, that they aren't going to let just anyone into the back room, even in an advisory capacity as you suggest.
But an idea for them to consider, if they choose to entertain this notion, would be for them to create a whole new forum and only allow a select few into it as the advisory panel for the purposes of discussing rule sets. If I were still on staff, I would support that idea. (Of course I would! It was my idea!
The bigger question though is who gets selected and how are they chosen?
Might be a good idea to open a new S&FF thread with your idea because it will quickly get lost in this thread.
Is it possible to add "No PRSI Access" to people's avatars for people that are banned or suspended from the PRSI forum (similar to the banned or suspended on the Avatars when people are suspended from MR).
I think most of us would like to known the person's status when we spend time writing up a response or answering a question.
It will also not hurt to remind people that they can get removed from the PRSI forum.
And what would that prove. So now you want the forum software to troll members?
- Status