It’s not an accusation, it’s a fact. I was banned because the moderators want us to read CNN - not Fox. It’s not like I insulted anyone.
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 can guarantee you it's not what you said, it's how it was said.
For what ever reason, unless I missed it, your moderation history hasn't been posted. Although you did say it was okay in a prior post to release. Maybe the staff does deserve some just criticism on the way it was handled(and maybe they don't), I don't know, but without the history, this is one-sided and coming off as baseless accusations. You can stand firm until the cows come, but antagonizing doesn't mostly ever get you what you want.
You did indeed miss it.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/prsi-forum-discussion.2106339/page-7#post-26215049
That sounds like a personal interpretation of your moderation.
If the mods want to fix PRSI crack down on the blatant propaganda threads that only purpose is to troll the masses. These same few posters have been doing it for years with no repercussions but once they are called out on it in public those people get the hammer.
There is no reason why PRSI needs to be giving conspiracy theories more time of day. There is no deep state and the media is not fake news so stop giving these posters the attention they seek.
There is no reason why PRSI needs to be giving conspiracy theories more time of day. There is no deep state and the media is not fake news so stop giving these posters the attention they seek.
No. I just don't think a moderator told you to read CNN instead of Fox.
or use a moderation system like slashdot’s.
wimpies can get their safe spaces, adults can read at -1, everybody wins.
I'm highly doubtful of this claim. Please link me to the line of posts that preceded this, if they're still publicly visible. I'm willing to bet, based on my experience, that it was a series of back and forth posts between you and others and it culminated in you making this Fox News post in a trollish manner.
Sounds like you were refusing to engage with a legitimate source and continuing to post in an unproductive way. Considering your post history in this thread alone, it sounds about right.
You have abused the word "clearly" in that post. You are who says the moderators banned you for reading one type of news outlet vs another. Since that makes no sense vs guidelines, it's not clear at all.
You're talking in this forum with other people who have experienced moderation and in some cases suspension from either PRSI privileges or the forums all together for various time frames.
No one else makes assertions of the sort you are making. Which I personally don't take as proof that you're being taken to task in some special way lol although.... it might become comprehensible after awhile. Maybe you're asking for it, darling. Ask and ye shall receive?
Thanks for pointing that out.
It seems there is more to this than just those two posts as @LizKat, @SandboxGeneral, @BigMcGuire, et al have hypothesized. As you yourself said, the second post crosses the line and the first post, as others have also said, was the culmination of some back and forth. There is absolutely no way, that a suspension or other moderation would(or could) ever come out of a preference for news sources.
[doublepost=1531077348][/doublepost]
I agree that some of the threads, imo, should be banished to wasteland. However, my guess is, in interest of free speech that is within the rules of the site, they are allowed to stand. Some of them do disappear. Reading wasteland occasionally is a snapshot into the more egregious types of these threads.
[doublepost=1531077430][/doublepost]
I can't see this site going to a free-for-all model of posting. That's not the way MacRumors, imo, seems to want to be known to the internet.
You were banned for trolling and/or breaking the rules for a productive debate since you were not going to read the article and debate the subject. It’s fine you prefer Fox News. But you admitted you wouldn’t even read the article.
It would be like a debate with me posting about the earth being round using a credible and reputable source, but if you believed in flat earth you coming back saying you weren’t going to read my article to dispute what it says because it is fake science.
That results in a ban? That sure seems insignificant. I didn’t read all the thread. But if that kind of post is warning for trolling I feel bad for Mods.
Why shouldn't it? It's a rule for PRSI so if you are not willing to debate the subject at hand and claim the source as instant fake news, it shows you are not seriously going to discuss the subject. So it is either trolling or failure to follow the guidelines of a debate. Choose which one. Either way it goes against the rules of PRSI and enough warnings, yeah you deserve a ban.
Bro...your post history in this thread, and this post especially, show why you got banned. It had nothing to do with the actual content of a specific post. It had to do with your repeated and obvious trolling comments. You know you weren't banned because the moderators want you to watch CNN. We know it. The mods know it. My six year old could probably figure that out. The reason you keep repeating these same statements ad nauseum is that you are seeking attention through lightweight trolling, not because you actually believe it. This was also persistent in PRSI. THAT is what got you removed. Give up the act. No one here is dumb enough to believe it.
Look on the bright side, Vid, now you can hop into the MBP 2018 or Mac Pro or Mac Mini threads and join the rest of us theorizing when Apple will release new hardware and partake in our shared disappointment borderline misery when they don't. Much more fun than PRSI.
I think he figured that, since he can’t post in PRSI anymore, a “meta-analysis” of his posts in PRSI is the next best thing.
that sort of system tends to filter out everyone but the libertarian linux users.
OMG!!! Ponies!
Not Linux users!!! They don't showe..... OK I'll stop before I get banned. <cough>.
A more complete response is on its way shortly, but in the meantime since you've brought it up a few times I'll make a quick comment on your "Fox News" post: the moderation was nothing to do with what news sources you like to read or that we think you should or should not read particular media. It would have almost certainly been moderated the same way had you said "Why would I read that?" instead of "Why would I read anything but fox news?". The moderation was because your response indicated that by replying to posts without regard to what they said or linked to that you weren't willing to contribute to a constructive discussion, instead posting only to cause argument or irritate. This is defined as trolling in the rules for appropriate debate, and the determination was also supported by other posts made by you in the same thread which followed the same pattern.
Sarcasm is fine as long as it's done within the rules. My suggestion if you do regain access is that you follow the rules all the time; we do have flexibility under the policy to act if we see members deliberately skirting just below thresholds, and thresholds are also likely to be lower if members are readmitted to the forum:
Trolling is indeed difficult to define, and we're reviewing how we communicate and moderate it as part of a larger review of PRSI moderation. The problem we have with trolling in particular as well as other rules is that violations don't tend to be black and white and exist more on a spectrum. So wherever our line is, there are going to be difficult cases that require us to discuss them and members won't always agree with our conclusions. If you have any suggestions on how we can define things better, we'd be glad to hear them.
In terms of the third violation, since that's currently under review since you appealed it in a contact, I won't comment on that here.
To your last point, it's fine to refute a racist statement, and you can do this without making it personal by calling the poster a racist. However our preference if a post contains racist comments is to report it so we can handle it appropriately.
Yes, because you're calling a member foolish which is a personal attack. You can refute a member's post without making it personal.
I'm getting déjà vu here. We've already modified the reminder templates to be clearer about this. Apologies to those who were not aware about the policy prior to that change, which was not our intention - people clearly don't read our announcements as much as we think or would like.
Correct, bypassing the profanity filter is a minor rule violation and not considered under the three strike rule. The above reminder changes made a few months ago should make it clearer when rule violations are considered strikes.
That would only lead to more inconsistent moderation that would likely generate more complaints. We rely on members reporting posts and encourage them to do so. If members never reported posts, then we'd likely have to switch to more time-intensive means to maintain our standards of moderation.
Yes I was addressed in one comment before. There are two points I am making. One is that I never received any warning that I would be permanently banned because if changes were made to the reminder templates it wasn't until after I was banned. The other point is why permanently ban people? Especially over minor comments. Especially when a lot of times it's subjective.
The reasons for changes to PRSI moderation are explained in the forum announcement.
Announcement: Some changes in the way the PRSI section is moderated
So for people like me who just click on the "new Post" URL would never see that. New Post and Front Page are the only two links I use in the forum.
Moderators have such a high workload because the rules are so strict (especially when talking about trolling or insults). Make it illegal to walk down the street wearing a blue shirt and police will be giving out violation tickets all day.
This is the kind of statement that undermines your argument, it’s credibility.
Last edited:
- Status