I've never been targeted as a conservative, and this is one of the most liberal forums I'm active on. I guess if you're going above and beyond what it means to be conservative and be obnoxious, then I suppose you could be targeted for the latter, and not the former.
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
And that goes for anyone with any point of view, be it political, technical, or otherwise. A calm and well thought approach to a discussion is always best for every person involved.
No, I posted in this very thread a copy of my (liberal) comment that was deemed trolling.
I think that the vacation in question is temporary, rather than permanent.
I have it on good authority that it was, in fact, a deep state conspiracy. See this reference for proof.Something something deepstate conspiracy.MR could always do with cleaning house of riffraff.
You joke but I've had nutters accuse me of that before on here. Honestly, the only thing I have from that era of work was great memories, fantastic and funny colleagues, and a challenge coin I gifted to my oldest nephew who has a keen interest in coin collection. Oh, and the free travel that usually sucked.
From the administrators
User Videomanmac used the Contact form to submit this complaint to us:
Forum members who ask for a complete review of their moderation, which includes their moderation history, get a thorough and time-consuming review that we take seriously. We don't rush through these reviews or rubber-stamp moderation actions, and this one took longer than our average response time. We've followed this thread as well.
We're posting our response here because Videomanmac has waived the right to moderation privacy and brought up the concerns in this way.
Videomanmac,
Over the past week, the administrators reviewed your complaints, studied the recent and past moderation actions on your account, and interviewed the moderators. Here is our analysis.
As you no doubt know, moderation is based on the forum rules, the posts under consideration, and each individual's moderation history.
Here is your moderation history, a mixture of minor and major problems:
Users are moderated when they break the rules and we either see the problems in the course of our own browsing, or they are brought to our attention. If a conservative breaks the rules, then yes, the conservative is moderated. The same happens to moderates and liberals. We don't base any decisions on political views. Moderated conservatives tell us that we target conservatives. Moderated liberals tell us that we target liberals. We understand that this is a natural reaction, but it's not the case. One of the tasks of the administrators is to ensure that moderation is fair by observing the moderator's actions, providing them with guidance, and reviewing their decisions when requested by the moderators or by users. Also, the moderators work as a team, so no single moderator could get away with making suspensions based on personal bias. Finally, we provide the forum as a place for discussions of differing political opinions. If we purposely suppressed one opinion in favor of another, then why allow the discussions at all? (Extreme cases like hate speech are an exception, since we don't choose to be a host for such posts.) Instead of choosing sides, we insist only that opinions be expressed in accordance with the rules.
You said: In my comments in PSRI, I never bring race into a conversation, unless it's brought up.
Bringing up race is fine if it's done within the rules. Making racist comments is not fine. And whether or not another user brings up race has no bearing whatsoever on your own comments. Each user is responsible for their own posts.
You said: Apparently, it is okay to mention how blacks are sent to jail more often than whites due to "Trump's policy", but the minute I mention a biological fact that blacks are more hostile than whites, I get banned for it.
You are correct. The first comment is a statistic that can be proven or disproven. The second is a racist claim that breaks the forum rules. Whether or not you're suspended or lose access to PRSI for such a statement has to do with your moderation history.
You said: Moderation is completely unfair and biased. All of the comments about blacks being targeted are still up: https://forums.macrumors.com/goto/post?id=26175980#post-26175980
Perhaps you're referring to this comment? - "Especially if you’re black it seems."
If you look at the post in context, we find it clear that the user is referring to the perception or belief that black people are wrongfully arrested/convicted more than non-black people. This is a matter of statistics, and can be proven or disproven. It has nothing to do with black people themselves, and is therefore not a derogatory statement about black people.
You said: I recommend reversing this suspension and wiping it from my record.
After discussion, the administrators decided that one moderation action was less serious than the original judgement. This was your June 20 post in the "Trump signs executive order keeping families together" thread that said
Telling a user to shut up falls under the rule prohibiting personal insults (that phrase is specifically mentioned in the rules) so the moderators removed the first sentence, leaving the rest of the post intact. However, on review, the administrators decided that it didn't constitute a strike under the three-strikes PRSI policy because the comment was directed at everyone (on one side of the argument), not at one specific forum member, and there was also a point to it -- that the argument had become moot because of the president's action.
The reversal of this strike would have meant you were one strike short of losing PRSI access, however there was an additional violation made on the same day as the "Why would I read anything but fox news" post, where you commented:
"So it’s he system’s fault that mintorities are dumb? Not even close! Everyone has equal opportunity in America."
In the first sentence, you make it quite clear that you feel minorities are dumb, a racist slur that is disallowed on this site. You didn't receive a separate notice about it since the comment was reported after your suspension earlier that day. The moderator simply removed the comment, and documented the problem in the forum records. The outcome would have been the same if the posts had been moderated in the other order or if the "shut up" post had not been moderated.
You've mentioned more than once that you want to know where in the rules it says you have to watch other news sources than Fox. This is a straw man claim since nobody claimed that there was such a rule. The thread's subject was a PRSI discussion about Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods. A member linked an article on the subject, and you resplied with "Ha, I’d like to see the weak Canadians try it! We will own Canada if they do that!". The other member responded, "Wow. It’s like you didn’t even read the article." You then replied, "Why would I read anything but fox news?". It does appear to us, as it did to other members, that you were ignoring the article and instead making sarcastic comments to provoke others. That's trolling.
A few posts down you continue: "Time to show Canada who’s boss. Either they bow down to us or we invade." More trolling, in the opinion of the moderators, and the administrators agree.
In this thread you also make the following claim: And so far only the moderators have chimed in their opinions, the admins have not came in here yet. So far, the moderators actions have gone unchecked and unbalanced.
Moderator discussions and moderation are always visible to the administrators, and the moderators and administrators communicate continually. There is no basis for the claim that "actions have gone unchecked and unbalanced."
In conclusion, we find that the three-strikes PRSI suspension was warranted. To sum up: Here are the three comments that explain your loss of PRSI access:
1. Posted June 21 in the thread "Canada just officially passed its law to legalize weed"
2. Posted June 29 in the thread "Who is losing out from Trump's tariffs?"
3. Posted June 29 in the thread "Can white people experience racism?"
User Videomanmac used the Contact form to submit this complaint to us:
As much as I've heard that the moderation team bans conservative voices, I tried not to believe it. Turns out what I've heard is true.
In my comments in PSRI, I never bring race into a conversation, unless it's brought up. Apparently, it is okay to mention how blacks are sent to jail more often than whites due to "Trump's policy" , but the minute I mention a biological fact that blacks are more hostile than whites, I get banned for it.
The moderation is completely unfair and biased. All of the comments about blacks being targeted are still up: https://forums.macrumors.com/goto/post?id=26175980#post-26175980
I recommend reversing this suspension and wiping it from my record.
In my comments in PSRI, I never bring race into a conversation, unless it's brought up. Apparently, it is okay to mention how blacks are sent to jail more often than whites due to "Trump's policy" , but the minute I mention a biological fact that blacks are more hostile than whites, I get banned for it.
The moderation is completely unfair and biased. All of the comments about blacks being targeted are still up: https://forums.macrumors.com/goto/post?id=26175980#post-26175980
I recommend reversing this suspension and wiping it from my record.
Forum members who ask for a complete review of their moderation, which includes their moderation history, get a thorough and time-consuming review that we take seriously. We don't rush through these reviews or rubber-stamp moderation actions, and this one took longer than our average response time. We've followed this thread as well.
We're posting our response here because Videomanmac has waived the right to moderation privacy and brought up the concerns in this way.
Videomanmac,
Over the past week, the administrators reviewed your complaints, studied the recent and past moderation actions on your account, and interviewed the moderators. Here is our analysis.
As you no doubt know, moderation is based on the forum rules, the posts under consideration, and each individual's moderation history.
Here is your moderation history, a mixture of minor and major problems:
- Oct 21, 2016 Reminder for post disallowed outside of Marketplace forum.
- Jan 26, 2018 Reminder for one-word post.
- Jun 14, 2018 Reminder for duplicate post in PRSI.
- Jun 21, 2018 Reminder for trolling in PRSI.
- Jun 22, 2018 Two-day suspension for trolling (racist group slur) in PRSI.
- Jun 25, 2018 Reminder for off-topic comment in a news thread.
- Jun 30, 2018 Four days for trolling in PRSI.
- Jun 30, 2018 Racist trolling in PRSI. The post was simply removed since your account was already suspended.
- Jul 01, 2018 Lost PRSI access after "three strikes."
- Jul 04, 2018 Reminder for off-topic post about moderation in a Site and Forum Feedback thread.
- Jul 04, 2018 Second reminder for off-topic post about moderation in the same thread.
- Jul 07, 2018 Reminder for multiple PRSI posts outside of PRSI
- Jul 08, 2018 Another reminder for PRSI posts outside of PRSI
Users are moderated when they break the rules and we either see the problems in the course of our own browsing, or they are brought to our attention. If a conservative breaks the rules, then yes, the conservative is moderated. The same happens to moderates and liberals. We don't base any decisions on political views. Moderated conservatives tell us that we target conservatives. Moderated liberals tell us that we target liberals. We understand that this is a natural reaction, but it's not the case. One of the tasks of the administrators is to ensure that moderation is fair by observing the moderator's actions, providing them with guidance, and reviewing their decisions when requested by the moderators or by users. Also, the moderators work as a team, so no single moderator could get away with making suspensions based on personal bias. Finally, we provide the forum as a place for discussions of differing political opinions. If we purposely suppressed one opinion in favor of another, then why allow the discussions at all? (Extreme cases like hate speech are an exception, since we don't choose to be a host for such posts.) Instead of choosing sides, we insist only that opinions be expressed in accordance with the rules.
You said: In my comments in PSRI, I never bring race into a conversation, unless it's brought up.
Bringing up race is fine if it's done within the rules. Making racist comments is not fine. And whether or not another user brings up race has no bearing whatsoever on your own comments. Each user is responsible for their own posts.
You said: Apparently, it is okay to mention how blacks are sent to jail more often than whites due to "Trump's policy", but the minute I mention a biological fact that blacks are more hostile than whites, I get banned for it.
You are correct. The first comment is a statistic that can be proven or disproven. The second is a racist claim that breaks the forum rules. Whether or not you're suspended or lose access to PRSI for such a statement has to do with your moderation history.
You said: Moderation is completely unfair and biased. All of the comments about blacks being targeted are still up: https://forums.macrumors.com/goto/post?id=26175980#post-26175980
Perhaps you're referring to this comment? - "Especially if you’re black it seems."
If you look at the post in context, we find it clear that the user is referring to the perception or belief that black people are wrongfully arrested/convicted more than non-black people. This is a matter of statistics, and can be proven or disproven. It has nothing to do with black people themselves, and is therefore not a derogatory statement about black people.
You said: I recommend reversing this suspension and wiping it from my record.
After discussion, the administrators decided that one moderation action was less serious than the original judgement. This was your June 20 post in the "Trump signs executive order keeping families together" thread that said
Can you all shut up now about this? Not the best move by Trump, I will admit, but if it means he gets reelected again, then so be it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-prevent-family-separations-at-border.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-prevent-family-separations-at-border.html
Telling a user to shut up falls under the rule prohibiting personal insults (that phrase is specifically mentioned in the rules) so the moderators removed the first sentence, leaving the rest of the post intact. However, on review, the administrators decided that it didn't constitute a strike under the three-strikes PRSI policy because the comment was directed at everyone (on one side of the argument), not at one specific forum member, and there was also a point to it -- that the argument had become moot because of the president's action.
The reversal of this strike would have meant you were one strike short of losing PRSI access, however there was an additional violation made on the same day as the "Why would I read anything but fox news" post, where you commented:
"So it’s he system’s fault that mintorities are dumb? Not even close! Everyone has equal opportunity in America."
In the first sentence, you make it quite clear that you feel minorities are dumb, a racist slur that is disallowed on this site. You didn't receive a separate notice about it since the comment was reported after your suspension earlier that day. The moderator simply removed the comment, and documented the problem in the forum records. The outcome would have been the same if the posts had been moderated in the other order or if the "shut up" post had not been moderated.
You've mentioned more than once that you want to know where in the rules it says you have to watch other news sources than Fox. This is a straw man claim since nobody claimed that there was such a rule. The thread's subject was a PRSI discussion about Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods. A member linked an article on the subject, and you resplied with "Ha, I’d like to see the weak Canadians try it! We will own Canada if they do that!". The other member responded, "Wow. It’s like you didn’t even read the article." You then replied, "Why would I read anything but fox news?". It does appear to us, as it did to other members, that you were ignoring the article and instead making sarcastic comments to provoke others. That's trolling.
A few posts down you continue: "Time to show Canada who’s boss. Either they bow down to us or we invade." More trolling, in the opinion of the moderators, and the administrators agree.
In this thread you also make the following claim: And so far only the moderators have chimed in their opinions, the admins have not came in here yet. So far, the moderators actions have gone unchecked and unbalanced.
Moderator discussions and moderation are always visible to the administrators, and the moderators and administrators communicate continually. There is no basis for the claim that "actions have gone unchecked and unbalanced."
In conclusion, we find that the three-strikes PRSI suspension was warranted. To sum up: Here are the three comments that explain your loss of PRSI access:
1. Posted June 21 in the thread "Canada just officially passed its law to legalize weed"
"Blacks are found to be more hostile than whites, if you want to bring race into this."
2. Posted June 29 in the thread "Who is losing out from Trump's tariffs?"
"Why would I read anything but fox news?"
3. Posted June 29 in the thread "Can white people experience racism?"
"So it’s he system’s fault that mintorities are dumb? Not even close! Everyone has equal opportunity in America."
Thanks again @Doctor Q for a clear and comprehensive recap of the Mods and Admins process and thorough review of the matter.
This should wrap things up with a bow.
This should wrap things up with a bow.
Yep...I fell into the conservative troll trap.
Firstly, @Videomanmac does deserve props for allowing this information to be disclosed. Secondly, the staff deserve props for taking the time for this thorough review and disclosing this information in a thoughtful, neutral manner that clearly outlines where the rules were violated.
Hopefully some of this thread, and especially this post, can be used in an educational manner going forward and dispel any myths the staff takes a politically biases view.
Impressive and comprehensive and thorough.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to compile and post these details; it is most instructive, and very useful.
Yeah it’s interesting to see that very detailed report and it’s clear from the violations that it had absolutely nothing to do with the mods having issues with conservatives. There’s a large number of reminders there and it’s no surprise at all that they are banned from the PRSI section.
I’d like to comment on one warning they got as it was in response to my post ; ‘especially if they are black it seems’. The mods understood the context of my post perfectly. Thank you for that
.
I think people fall into the trap of getting so wound up during a debate, they overstep the mark and feel hard done by when they get their knuckles wrapped. I’ve done this in the past but I try to control my anger when I read something offensive on here and question them rather than insult. It just makes reading better for everybody.
I’d like to comment on one warning they got as it was in response to my post ; ‘especially if they are black it seems’. The mods understood the context of my post perfectly. Thank you for that
.I think people fall into the trap of getting so wound up during a debate, they overstep the mark and feel hard done by when they get their knuckles wrapped. I’ve done this in the past but I try to control my anger when I read something offensive on here and question them rather than insult. It just makes reading better for everybody.
Agreed, vey interesting to read such a forensic dissection from the perspective of mods/and admins and very commendable and fair-minded of them to take the time and trouble to do soon such pain-staking detail.
Again, agreed; it is a trap we are all prone to stumble into, and, in recent times, I have tried to take something of a step back from PRSI and not engage quite so frequently, for precisely this very reason.
I'd don't think that's something I'd want. "I said that, oh, yeah, haha!"
It could be a new list: "Macrumors 10 most modded users, Summer, 2018"...
Have you got any issues with specific moderation because it takes a lot of valuable time to process the information and present it in as much detail as @Doctor Q did for the member making accusations about biased moderation.
PS: You haven't got a very good memory.
You should be able to see everything in conversations. Mine go all the way back to 2013, I've been a bad fairy.
This.
My only experience posting on PRSI was to comment on a thread where the OP was, imo, trolling. My post(s) were subsequently removed. I’m not exactly sure why, but so it goes.
I have little desire to post on PRSI, but read several of the threads. And marvel at the bitterness and anger expressed by folks that either identify as conservatives or liberals. Or label others as being one or the other.
Fortunately my experience of people on a face-to-face, day-to-day basis, is not that binary. The vast majority of interactions I have, with people across the political spectrum, are civil and usually interesting.
Even so, thoughtful, nuanced discussion of politics and policy is a rare thing, especially online. At least in my experience. I lurk on PRSI hoping to find some, but thus far, at least in the threads I’ve taken the time to look at, I’ve not. It seems to be partly due to being in a context in which the usual filters are largely absent.
I guess I have a personal problem with the expression of vitriol not only here, but on other boards I subscribe to that engage in political/policy discussions. So I refrain.
I was fortunate enough to attend a decent graduate program in public policy. Although that particular program is acccused of having a strong liberal bias, I found that the discussions in most of my classes, particularly economics and public finance, were quite balanced. Those two years changed the way I look at the world. And I can’t believe I’m at the point where I can say this, but age has had that effect on me as well.
Depending on the issue at hand, I believe I’d be labeled as a liberal or as a conservative by someone who self-identifies as one of those two. Once that takes place, I find that meaningful discussion is difficult, if not impossible. Which is unfortunate, as I strongly believe that real, civil dialog is more necessary today than at any point in history.
FWIW, I’m registered as an independent in Virginia, and was so in Colorado.
Last edited:
If you have quoted posts that are deemed to be breaking the rules and are later moderated, your replies will also be deleted as part of the clean up.
Not a complaint, at all. And I don’t envy you your role in MR. Thank you for your service.
It just wasn’t clear to me exactly why, but I assumed there was some violation on my part. Certainly didn’t matter enough to me to pursue further. I make mistakes quite frequently, it seems. Part of life.
It was clearly because MR only supports (insert cable news network you disagree with here) and only allows (insert your political bias) opinions here.
Commies!
Hah, amen!
<goes to click Report on your post> (kidding - never reported any of your posts to my knowledge).[doublepost=1531345708][/doublepost]Wow what an in-depth post by Doctor Q. Did not expect that level of detail!
Last edited:
Wow what a cleaning. :/ (Talking about just this last one).
- Status