PRSI Forum discussion

[sartrekid]

People shouldn’t have to get suspended or warnings by mods to learn about any new rules, they should just be made aware of them by a means that preempts any breaking of them.

As a member of PayPal, whenever they change something within their policies, I get an email about what's new.

Couldn't something similar be implemented here so that the above mentioned issues don't happen? One could send a PM to every member, or indeed an email. That way it'd be strictly up to a MR member to be up-to-date with the current MR policies.

 

[mobilehaathi]

You are obviously just trolling me now :/

Really?

As a member of PayPal, whenever they change something within their policies, I get an email about what's new.

Couldn't something similar be implemented here so that the above mentioned issues don't happen? One could send a PM to every member, or indeed an email. That way it'd be strictly up to a MR member to be up-to-date with the current MR policies.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea for any further changes to rules or procedures that are implemented. Or hell, they could still do it as a good faith reminder for the somewhat recently made changes.

 

[MacDawg]

The only people who need a comprehensive and detailed list of rules on how not to be a complete *******, are *******s who are trying to circumvent the rules or push them to their limits. The more specific and nuanced the rules are, the more creative and determined *******s become to exploit them.

Kids have been doing this to parents since the beginning of time.

 

[mobilehaathi]

Edit: I say this because although it’s been mentioned countless times, you won’t accept that (some people/a lot of people/who knows how many?) people use the ‘New Posts’ button to view the forum as a whole, and do not go into any specific “forums they regularly participate in” to view threads.

Sorry let me connect the dots for you. This was addressed by the following comment.

Either way it is incumbent upon the user to know the rules....Arguments that they “didn’t see it” are unconvincing, largely because claiming ignorance has never been a strong defense.

I’ll work on making my meaning plainer for you in the future.

 

[Krayzkat]

Sorry let me connect the dots for you. This was addressed by the following comment.



I’ll work on making my meaning plainer for you in the future.

If I was acting the way you are, I’d be banned be now. Maybe i’ll get banned for saying that, who knows?

 

[mobilehaathi]

If I was acting the way you are, I’d be banned be now. Maybe i’ll get banned for saying that, who knows?

I’ve quite clearly outlined my perspective, and when you accused me of trolling I took the time to address your concern. Being cold to you isn’t a rules violation.

 

[bunnspecial]

Yeah I’m sure my comment was a bit harsh as I don’t get too involved in the techy parts of this site. I’m not a Mac user and I’d imagine the discussion on the more in depth support side of the forums is informative and helpful. I had a bad experience about 2 years ago when I downloaded a version of iOS and my iPhone went super laggy. I asked if anybody had a similar experience and users who I had never encountered before called me a troll and a liar and I was challenged to prove it. I rarely ask for advice here and I saw a side to the fanboyism iPhone users all too often get accused of.

My post was a bit of a dig at the iPhone section in the days after release. So many pointless inane threads asking the same question over and over again. I have to admit I check PRSI more often than any other section and if it was closed or I was banned from it, I’d probably remove my account as it provides more entertainment than any other section on here for me personally.

I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and even though I've been an iPhone user longer than I've been a Mac user(2010 and 2012, respectively) I just don't go there.

I still consider the best site around for Mac users, though. Unfortunately, certain sub-fora have their own quirks. The MBP and iMac fora are ripe with "upgrade-itis"(where the solution to everything is buy a new computer). The MacBook forum use to be great before the Retina MB, but getting help on a "classic" MacBook on that forum is pretty well hopeless. Even though I'm not particularly active in it, the Mac Pro forum has a big pool of folks who really know their stuff and as a Mac Pro users I benefit a lot from reading it. I am active in PPC forum and the Apple Collectors forum, and as I said both are great for tech help as well as just some mind boggling upgrade activity. In the Apple Collectors forum, there's nothing like asking for help on getting a functional hard drive in my Macintosh Portable or getting a shared printer to work from another computer in System 6 and getting a step-by-step guide.

I've gotten involved in the Digital Photography forum more recently, and even though I have more of an interest in film photography I've found it to be a very welcoming and informative place.

This is a BIG site, though, so not everyone can or will get the same things out of it. I think you and I are definitely in agreement on the iPhone sub-fora.

BTW, although I do sometimes participate in PRSI, I mostly do so when something in the "recent posts" side bar catches my attention.

 

[HexMonkey]

The rules changed without warning in 2017 to permanently block/Ban users from PRSI, they were put in a sticky thread that I never saw. (had the admins not locked the thread I might have seen it) Since I do NOT go directly to the PRSI forums, I click the "New Post" url.

Without warning would have been if we didn't post a sticky. You might not have seen it, but it wasn't without warning. It's the same as if a company emails a user about a policy change, but the user claims not to have been warned about it because they don't use the services in a way that involves them checking their email. We can't possibly be expected to envisage every possible way people could use the forums, nor would it be technically possible for us to notify people in a way that would cover all of them, especially when we see some users (not you) claiming they weren't informed about things because they couldn't be bothered reading messages they received.

The thread was not initially locked, but this was later done because the discussion kept veering into off topic political discussion rather than comments on the policy.

On top of that for those who didn't see the announcement, it would have been nice to warn them in the reminders that they would be permanently banned/blocked from PRSI.

We've already added them, so I don't know what more you want. Although we have some powers, time travel is not one of them. We won't retroactively reinstate PRSI access to those who didn't have an explicit mention of them in reminder messages, since there was no change to the rules that these members agreed when they registered.

Am I not being clear in what I am trying to say? Posting rule changes in a place where I don't look doesn't seem fair.

We did the best we could to communicate the new policy, via the same means we've posted rule or policy change announcements for the history of the site without issue. Emailing every member wouldn't have been a good option, since those who are affected by the policy are a very small fraction of our over one million users and it would have annoyed many more people than it would have helped. If you have ideas for how we can better communicate policy changes in the future, we're open to them, but members must also take some responsibility to look out for them. It's fine for you to use the New Posts feature, but in doing so you accept that it has some limitations and therefore isn't necessarily suitable for use 100% of the time.

Note also, as has been stated, that there were no rules changes, just our policy around how we handle them. Had you followed the rules as had been stated when you registered, you wouldn't be in this situation.

It's clearly stated in the reminder message that you can get suspended if you repeat the violation. Here's the message sent for a reminder for insults.

Additionally, for PRSI strikes the message now includes this paragraph:

As this violation occurred in the "Politics, Religion, Social Issues" (PRSI) forum, it will additionally be considered as part of our PRSI-specific policies. These can result in loss of access to the PRSI forum after three violations of the Rules for Appropriate Debate within a six month period, or behaviour of similar severity. For more detail, see the Rules for Appropriate Debate and details about this policy.

I agree that it is every user's responsibility to keep up with any rules. However, sometimes it's not so clear cut what constitutes rules violations. For instance: I posted a "flag man-kini" in response to a "flag bikini". Frivolous? Possibly... Major rules violations? Possibly...

I do think that when something like posting a picture is considered a major rules violation it should say so more clearly in the message.

I haven't seen the post in question, but the forum rules do separate rules into sections of severity, and the reminder message will mention what rule has been violated. Frivolous posts are not a major rule violation. If you would like clarification on any rule or reminder, you're welcome to contact us or post in the Site & Forum Feedback forum (as long as it's not about specific moderation) and we can assist.

People shouldn’t have to get suspended or warnings by mods to learn about any new rules, they should just be made aware of them by a means that preempts any breaking of them.

As already stated, there were no new rules. Just how we moderate them.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

Without warning would have been if we didn't post a sticky. You might not have seen it, but it wasn't without warning. It's the same as if a company emails a user about a policy change, but the user claims not to have been warned about it because they don't use the services in a way that involves them checking their email. We can't possibly be expected to envisage every possible way people could use the forums, nor would it be technically possible for us to notify people in a way that would cover all of them, especially when we see some users (not you) claiming they weren't informed about things because they couldn't be bothered reading messages they received.

The thread was not initially locked, but this was later done because the discussion kept veering into off topic political discussion rather than comments on the policy.

It is what it is, it's just unfortunate. Last spring and summer were incredibly busy for me and I barely popped my head in the forums.

We've already added them, so I don't know what more you want. Although we have some powers, time travel is not one of them. We won't retroactively reinstate PRSI access to those who didn't have an explicit mention of them in reminder messages, since there was no change to the rules that these members agreed when they registered.

That I am quite happy about and is fair to other members. I believe this came about with a conversation we had in another thread. The fact that other people are starting threads about moderation and then mods or admins posting replies that everyone should have known that the rules changed on how they handle moderation should know there was some gray area.

We did the best we could to communicate the new policy, via the same means we've posted rule or policy change announcements for the history of the site without issue. Emailing every member wouldn't have been a good option since those who are affected by the policy are a very small fraction of our over one million users and it would have annoyed many more people than it would have helped. If you have ideas for how we can better communicate policy changes in the future, we're open to them, but members must also take some responsibility to look out for them. It's fine for you to use the New Posts feature, but in doing so you accept that it has some limitations and therefore isn't necessarily suitable for use 100% of the time.

understood and as for a better way to communicate changes...we hashed that out already.

Note also, as has been stated, that there were no rules changes, just our policy around how we handle them. Had you followed the rules as had been stated when you registered, you wouldn't be in this situation.

That goes back to two things in my opinion. One that two of the trolling warning I got I never meant troll and that it's subjective. I was stating what I believed and still believe to be true.

The other being on the final one I knew it might have been border line to point out that someone whines a lot in a thread, but willing to take a time-out over it.

 

[niploteksi]

I haven't seen the post in question, but the forum rules do separate rules into sections of severity, and the reminder message will mention what rule has been violated. Frivolous posts are not a major rule violation. If you would like clarification on any rule or reminder, you're welcome to contact us or post in the Site & Forum Feedback forum (as long as it's not about specific moderation) and we can assist.

Actually I stand corrected. It wasn't the man-kini that was the major rules violation, it must have been the tin-foil-hat instructions pic. I apologize! Disregard my previous post about the man-kini part.

All in all I wouldn't dispute my own suspension from the PRSI. I made two posts that questioned the validity of two posters, in a language not accepted on the forum, and I made fun of another one by posting a funny picture.

 

[Videomanmac]

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.

Thank you for the response.
[doublepost=1531187882][/doublepost]

The only people who need a comprehensive and detailed list of rules on how not to be a complete *******, are *******s who are trying to circumvent the rules or push them to their limits. The more specific and nuanced the rules are, the more creative and determined *******s become to exploit them.

Kids have been doing this to parents since the beginning of time.

I can't even read your post because half of it is asterisked out! If you want to have a more meaningful conversation, at least let me be able to read your post without taking a guessing game.

 

[samiwas]

Thanks for calling me a liar. Should be easy to see where I click, actually the shortcut that I use on my browser is still from the old site before it was re-done. forums.macrumors.com/search/?do=getnew&exclude=41

Dude...they posted the announcement in the forum itself as a permanent top-thread. What else could they do? Send everyone who has ever entered PRSI a special email or something?

 

[TheAppleFairy]

Dude...they posted the announcement in the forum itself as a permanent top-thread. What else could they do? Send everyone who has ever entered PRSI a special email or something?

I suppose you haven’t read my other comments. Everything that needed to be said has been said. So you knew the rule and still got banned...nice.

 

[mobilehaathi]

So you knew the rule and still got banned...nice.

And your argument is what? If I knew, I wouldn’t have broken so many rules?

 

[0388631]

I sincerely doubt some would change their behavior if they were given advance notice of a rule change and had it PM'd to them. You're given enough chances to clean your act up.

 

[OllyW]

I sincerely doubt some would change their behavior if they were given advance notice of a rule change and had it PM'd to them. You're given enough chances to clean your act up.

I'm afraid you are right but unfortunately for us there's a small minority who think the rules should be changed to suit their behaviour.

I also post on other forums and if one of their moderators sent me a warning because I had broken one of their rules, I'm sure I would take note and try my hardest not to make the same mistake again, even if I thought I had been harshly dealt with. I definitely wouldn't ignore them and do it again because that is just asking for trouble.

 

[HexMonkey]

That goes back to two things in my opinion. One that two of the trolling warning I got I never meant troll and that it's subjective. I was stating what I believed and still believe to be true.

Trolling is incredibly different to define. There are many different definitions; some are based on user intent, which is difficult if not impossible to infer when moderating, while others are based more on the effect of what is said regardless of what was intended. We try to use a consistent definition on the moderation side, through discussion of borderline cases and experience, but using a definition that's consistent with users' definition(s) is much harder. One thing that's in the scope of our current review is whether the rules should be tweaked in this area, either to better communicate our understanding of it (eg it may be that it's better described using a word other than trolling in some cases), or by changing our definitions slightly to better match user expectations if that's what's needed. If you or other members have any input to make here, we'd be happy to hear it.

 

[I7guy]

Trolling is incredibly different to define. There are many different definitions; some are based on user intent, which is difficult if not impossible to infer when moderating, while others are based more on the effect of what is said regardless of what was intended. We try to use a consistent definition on the moderation side, through discussion of borderline cases and experience, but using a definition that's consistent with users' definition(s) is much harder. One thing that's in the scope of our current review is whether the rules should be tweaked in this area, either to better communicate our understanding of it (eg it may be that it's better described using a word other than trolling in some cases), or by changing our definitions slightly to better match user expectations if that's what's needed. If you or other members have any input to make here, we'd be happy to hear it.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of "trolling" on the mod side?

Seems to me the definition of "trolling" is a moving target and trolling is a writing style and clever in nature, designed to purposefully piss people off and hard to codify.

The staff however gets props for taking this on.

 

[OllyW]

Seems to me the definition of "trolling" is a moving target and trolling is a writing style and clever in nature, designed to purposefully piss people off and hard to codify.

Sounds about right.

 

[0388631]

I'm afraid you are right but unfortunately for us there's a small minority who think the rules should be changed to suit their behaviour.

I have children, so I understand where you're coming from.

 

[D.T.]

I can't even read your post because half of it is asterisked out! If you want to have a more meaningful conversation, at least let me be able to read your post without taking a guessing game.

Based on the context, the *** seems pretty obvious (you're aware that there's a content parser when you post, that replaces certain profanity/vulgar language with a *** placeholder, correct?)

So just substitute something a little more family friendly, and I think it's clear what was being said:

The only people who need a comprehensive and detailed list of rules on how not to be a complete jerk, are jerks who are trying to circumvent the rules or push them to their limits. The more specific and nuanced the rules are, the more creative and determined jerks become to exploit them.

[doublepost=1531235600][/doublepost]

Had you followed the rules as had been stated when you registered, you wouldn't be in this situation.

You know, at some point, shouldn't the "rules" be some standard of courteous discourse that don't need to even be codified? Sometimes the whole idea of having to police what we post, even in topics that are naturally divisive and emotional, seems so unfortunate.

 

[Videomanmac]

Is it possible that because of all of the liberal members here, trolling is defined as anything conservative because it pisses them off?

 

[mobilehaathi]

Is it possible that because of all of the liberal members here, trolling is defined as anything conservative because it pisses them off?

Nope, keep trying though.

 

[OllyW]

Is it possible that because of all of the liberal members here, trolling is defined as anything conservative because it pisses them off?

No, the same rules apply to everyone.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

One thing that strikes me as trolling is when people pretend not to understand something as a pretext for a rant. I find it insulting to my intelligence. I don't know if the mods consider that a form of trolling, but I do.