Quality of Moderation on MacRumors Forums

[SchilPhiller]

Before I get into this, am I going to be blocked simply for wanting these issues and this topic being brought up in a way which is open for discussion to all members, owners, admins and moderators?

I'm sick of being ignored when attempting to contact via email and discuss or repeal some decisions made on here and it seems that many, MANY others have the same issues - and are simply banned and have posts removed before anybody would know.

I will continue once this is confirmed as otherwise, I don't want to waste my time

 

[Boyd01]

Before I get into this, am I going to be blocked simply for wanting these issues and this topic being brought up in a way which is open for discussion to all members, owners, admins and moderators?

It's a little hard to answer that without knowing the issues you want to discuss. You must waive your right to privacy if you wish to talk about moderation of your own posts. If you want to discuss the moderation of posts by other members, they'd need to waive their own rights to privacy.

See this FAQ:

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201846748-Where-do-I-post-comments-about-moderation-

 

[floral]

I think talking about the moderation aspect itself, like asking if a certain action would break a rule and/or you think a rule should be changed, that's fine, this is the feedback forum after all !

But for specific/personal incidents, it gets more complex.

If you want to willingly subject yourself to having any necessary punishments against you, past or present, revealed to public eyes (and meet a few other "waiving privacy" requirements found in the FAQ), then you can discuss publicly about something that happened to you as long as it benefits the knowledge of other people.

Complaining about an incident and requesting it be scrubbed off your record or should be lowered in severity isn't a good example of this exception to privacy, private chats are just better to avoid stirring up a giant pot of drama soup. (That doesn't taste good.)

And waiving the privacy of others (without their consent) is a huge no-no, though that doesn't apply here.

 

[SchilPhiller]

"Waiting the right to privacy" - come off it. This is an internet forum, as far as you are all concerned - I am my username, and I am free to discuss me (as my username / profile / associate posts and experiences on the forum) as well as anyone else by their username and associated public info... that is not something anybody needs permission for. And insisting it via some other stupid policy would only back up what I would like to discuss and what everybody knows and feels about this forum.

 

[icanhazmac]

and it seems that many, MANY others have the same issues

In my 5 years here I just haven't see that. Occasionally a very small number of members complain about moderation but it's pretty clear from their arguments that they want MR moderated to their personal tastes and against their personal biases and won't stop complaining until they get things done the way they want. Thankfully that doesn't tend to happen.

Spend some time going through the complaints here in S&FF and I'm sure you will recognize the same half dozen members with site and/or moderation complaints, hardly "many, MANY".

I would like to discuss and what everybody knows and feels about this forum.

I find it interesting that in the 3 weeks you have been a member here you know what "everybody knows and feels about this forum".

Please don't include me in your "everyone". Every time I have questioned a moderation choice I got a response, might not be the one I wanted, but I did get one. YMMV but please dispense with the gross generalizations and assumptions.

 

[SchilPhiller]

In my 5 years here I just haven't see that. Occasionally a very small number of members complain about moderation but it's pretty clear from their arguments that they want MR moderated to their personal tastes and against their personal biases and won't stop complaining until they get things done the way they want. Thankfully that doesn't tend to happen.

You don't see it because they remove the posts and suspend them.

Spend some time going through the complaints here in S&FF and I'm sure you will recognize the same half dozen members with site and/or moderation complaints, hardly "many, MANY".


I find it interesting that in the 3 weeks you have been a member here you know what "everybody knows and feels about this forum".

3 weeks is how long I've had this account - they'll suspend me for even admitting it. But reality is, they can't actually ban people in the modern internet. And frankly the reasons for banning are plainly out of power trips or bias from moderators themselves.

You don't see comments either like 'what happened to that member' or 'that member was banned because .. and I think that's' - because they'll ban that person too, and remove their comments.

That's the issue. Obviously sometimes members are in the wrong and moderation is done fine. But the issue with 'no commenting on it' or whatever is like a communist regime ...

Please don't include me in your "everyone". Every time I have questioned a moderation choice I got a response, might not be the one I wanted, but I did get one. YMMV but please dispense with the gross generalizations and assumptions.

You're welcome to exclude yourself from 'everyone', but you have zero influence on the words I use, including 'everyone'. This is an internet forum, not a court room. I will use as many generalisations and assumptions I want, and if I'm wrong that's fine too.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Please don't include me in your "everyone".

Amen to that.

Every time I have questioned a moderation choice I got a response, might not be the one I wanted, but I did get one.

Yes, I must agree with this, and well said, for it is nicely nuanced, and this has been pretty much my experience, too.

 

[maflynn]

that is not something anybody needs permission for. And insisting it via some other stupid policy would only back up what I would like to discuss and what everybody knows and feels about this forum.

Two points.
While you and others certainly can have the opinion its a stupid policy, it is a policy that is in place on a privately owned message board. You (and I) have no say in how they craft, and enforce the rules, and you agree to follow those rules when you sign up. If those rules are too onerous to follow, you are free to avoid participation, no one is forcing you to be here.

Secondly, I'm of the opinion that having the privacy policy is largely positive, particuraly when it comes to dealing with the staff. Its no one else's business that I interact with the moderators.

I'm all for transparency and full disclosures when it comes with the site, and the staff but there also needs a level of privacy so member and staff can be sure what they say is confidential.

 

[tolsen718]

The moderators are definitely biased in my opinion. Stuff I wouldn't even consider being political is being censored as political.

Do you make any effort at macrumors to ensure there is viewpoint diversity amongst the moderators?

Also, I should say that any posts related to Apple's green initiatives are basically baiting for responses to be moderated. If you happen to have a more nuanced view on such initiatives, it seems you are a target for moderation.

 

[icanhazmac]

Stuff I wouldn't even consider being political is being censored as political.

I got caught up in this myself. PRSI = Political, Religious or Social Issues. Posts falling under this umbrella, outside of threads marked for such, are subject to moderation. Just because you didn't post about something "political" doesn't mean you didn't bring up something considered a "social issue".

MR, perhaps you could change the warning message from "Political Post Outside of a Political News Forum" to something like "PRSI Post Outside of Allowed Threads". This might help clear up any confusion.

 

[Weaselboy]

MR, perhaps you could change the warning message from "Political Post Outside of a Political News Forum" to something like "PRSI Post Outside of Allowed Threads". This might help clear up any confusion.

Here is the current canned message. Do you think it is not clear enough?

This is a reminder from the MacRumors moderator team to avoid making posts that are about political, religious, or social issues, outside the "Political News" forum, and that are likely to steer discussions to those types of topics.

We purposely limit political, religious, or social issue discussion to the Political News forum (https://forums.macrumors.com/forums/political-news.218/) since the issues are often controversial or sources of discord, and can easily interfere with discussions on other topics, especially in news threads. Your post may have been edited, removed, or moved for this reason.

 

[icanhazmac]

Here is the current canned message. Do you think it is not clear enough?

No, I think the content of the message is crystal clear, I probably should have pointed that out. However, lots of people (myself included from time to time) just read the title or skim a message and the title right now is:

Reminder from the moderator team: Political post outside of Political News forum​

I know this because there are a few of them in my conversations list.

 

[tolsen718]

I got caught up in this myself. PRSI = Political, Religious or Social Issues. Posts falling under this umbrella, outside of threads marked for such, are subject to moderation. Just because you didn't post about something "political" doesn't mean you didn't bring up something considered a "social issue".

MR, perhaps you could change the warning message from "Political Post Outside of a Political News Forum" to something like "PRSI Post Outside of Allowed Threads". This might help clear up any confusion.

ok, that makes sense, but then I want to ask why posts about Apple's blunder on the FineWoven cases are not in a political news forum? The FineWoven case is all about a social issue, namely their green initiatives.

Also, I would like to post two hypothetical example responses which I think would serve as a good example for testing for bias.

1. "I just got my FineWoven case and while it's quality leaves much to be desired, I am very happy to be supporting Apples green initiatives and helping to save the planet."

2. "These new cases are a complete blunder. If Apple really wants to effect change they could have sourced leather from regenerative cattle farms."

In my opinion, if MR moderates one but not the other than there is clear bias here.

 

[Weaselboy]

However, lots of people (myself included from time to time) just read the title

Ah... gotcha. Good point. I'll bring it up with the rest of the staff.

 

[icanhazmac]

In my opinion, if MR moderates one but not the other than there is clear bias here.

I could be wrong but I don't think either example would get moderated but:

1. "I just got my FineWoven case and while it's quality leaves much to be desired, I am very happy to be supporting Apples green initiatives and helping to save the planet."

In a thread about the case one should stick to comments about the case and not take the opportunity to virtue signal. If the case sucks, just say that. IMHO one doesn't need to say "the case sucks but I will use it anyway to save the planet".

Result: I can see MR moderating that post to keep the thread from devolving into PRSI bickering.

2. "These new cases are a complete blunder. If Apple really wants to effect change they could have sourced leather from regenerative cattle farms."

Again, if the FineWoven case sucks, just say that. Commenting on leather of any source is just baiting those against the use of real leather. The thread is about the FineWoven case, not about Apple's choice to not sell leather.

Result: I can see MR moderating that post to keep the thread from devolving into PRSI bickering.


In an ideal world we could have nuanced conversations but........

 

[tolsen718]

I could be wrong but I don't think either example would get moderated but:



In a thread about the case one should stick to comments about the case and not take the opportunity to virtue signal. If the case sucks, just say that. IMHO one doesn't need to say "the case sucks but I will use it anyway to save the planet".

Result: I can see MR moderating that post to keep the thread from devolving into PRSI bickering.



Again, if the FineWoven case sucks, just say that. Commenting on leather of any source is just baiting those against the use of real leather. The thread is about the FineWoven case, not about Apple's choice to not sell leather.

Result: I can see MR moderating that post to keep the thread from devolving into PRSI bickering.


In an ideal world we could have nuanced conversations but........

ok, that's fine.

I'm curious though why this post wasn't moderated:

"

• Thursday at 6:18 AM

Leather cases felt so much nicer

I'm sure the dead animals would not agree
"

And then there's a bunch of comments after that which basically devolved into a vegan debate.

 

[icanhazmac]

Fair enough and I agree, that post probably de-railed the thread and should be whacked.

One thing I have heard from the mods all along is "if you have a problem with a post, report it". So my advice on that post is report it, state your case, and let the mods debate it. I'm sure the mods cannot read every single post so they rely on the community to report problematic posts.

 

[AZhappyjack]

3 weeks is how long I've had this account - they'll suspend me for even admitting it. But reality is, they can't actually ban people in the modern internet. And frankly the reasons for banning are plainly out of power trips or bias from moderators themselves.

You don't see comments either like 'what happened to that member' or 'that member was banned because .. and I think that's' - because they'll ban that person too, and remove their comments.

That's the issue. Obviously sometimes members are in the wrong and moderation is done fine. But the issue with 'no commenting on it' or whatever is like a communist regime ...

The MR forum is private property, and as such, @arn and his assigns have the right to ban or otherwise police posts by whomever they please on this site.

MacRumors is not "the modern internet", it's a private forum that resides ON "the modern internet". With regard to managing that forum, see above.

As a guest here, you are welcome to abide by those decisions or go hang out elsewhere.

You're welcome to exclude yourself from 'everyone', but you have zero influence on the words I use, including 'everyone'. This is an internet forum, not a court room. I will use as many generalisations and assumptions I want, and if I'm wrong that's fine too.

Exclude me... and you are wrong.

 

[tolsen718]

Fair enough and I agree, that post probably de-railed the thread and should be whacked.

One thing I have heard from the mods all along is "if you have a problem with a post, report it". So my advice on that post is report it, state your case, and let the mods debate it. I'm sure the mods cannot read every single post so they rely on the community to report problematic posts.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all this! I really appreciate it.

I have a better understanding of how moderation works on MR now, and I can adjust my posts accordingly.

 

[three]

Forgive me if this isn’t the right place to do it. While we’re on the topic of moderation, can we have a little transparency as to what’s the deal with the Apple.com iPhone 15 / Plus / Pro / Pro Max pre-order thread? I don’t need and I am not asking for any form of reasoning for why specific people are getting suspended or banned, I and many others would appreciate some form of explanation as to why that thread has been so heavily moderated this year over years past. Are we going wildly off-topic? What rules are being broken? What can I / we as a community do differently? It’s a very exciting time and the thread was, in years past, the happiest place on the internet. We all want our new iPhones.

I really hope I don’t get suspended or banned for asking this question. I’m genuinely curious and I would like to keep participating in this forum, I enjoy it here.

 

[KaliYoni]

what’s the deal with the Apple.com iPhone 15 / Plus / Pro / Pro Max pre-order thread?

Here's a previous thread you might find interesting:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/duplicate-posts.2348262/

 

[poorcody]

And insisting it via some other stupid policy would only back up what I would like to discuss and what everybody knows and feels about this forum.

Please exclude me from "everybody" as well.

I've noticed there is a common pattern whenever someone starts a thread complaining about moderation: I have yet to see one OP waive their right to privacy and let their posts/responses be looked at.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Here's a previous thread you might find interesting:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/duplicate-posts.2348262/

I hadn't even known about that thread - let alone have actually read it - until this evening.

Absolutely extraordinary, and thanks for the link.

 

[KaliYoni]

I hadn't even known about that thread - let alone have actually read it - until this evening.

Absolutely extraordinary, and thanks for the link.

Heh, sometimes it really seems like humans haven’t progressed much over our collective time on Earth…

 

[rm5]

Here's a previous thread you might find interesting:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/duplicate-posts.2348262/

Ok, what?! I didn't even know this thread existed. Well then...

This is really confusing to me—why would anyone make a thread about "pre-orders" THREE MONTHS before the actual launch of the product? And the linked thread is literally just people arguing over whether that stupid decision was justified in the first place. Yikes...

Now, THIS THREAD, about "questionable moderation practices" is, to me, becoming the same thing—people arguing over whether some incident was "fair" or not. What a waste of time.