Simply Put, Too Much

[Weaselboy]

Understood... I don't know that tossing everything out is the answer, but I agree in general it could sure be shortened up.

We sort of follow your second suggestion in threads where there are a bunch of problematic posts. Usually you will see it posted as a moderator note something like this:

Moderator Note:

Several off topic or frivolous posts have been removed from the thread. Please stay on topic. If you would like to continue discussing turtles, please start a new thread on that topic.

 

[I7guy]

I might have a look at that but my suggestion is all about starting clean, with the idea of less being more, such as:

We do not allow the posting of personal attacks, insults, harassment, inappropriate language, or spam. We reserve the right to remove any post that does not contribute to friendly discussion.​

Combine a simple and easy to understand moderation policy with more appearances of moderators in threads saying "please cut that out" if trivial debates get out of hand, and I think you've addressed the vast majority of the real issues we see on every comment board. It might well be that the pursuit of a perfect policy is the enemy of the good.

It never hurts to have a written list of rules, such as they are. But your suggestion, with one minor addition, could be the overall guiding policy:

We do not allow the posting of personal attacks, insults, harassment, inappropriate language, or spam. We reserve the right to remove any post that does not contribute to friendly discussion, derails the discussion with off-topic material or goes against applicable laws. For further information, please click https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201265337-Forum-Rules.

It's my opinion, no matter what the staff does to make a policy as fair as possible across the board, a site as big as MacRumors, which is almost a city, will never have a 100% agreement on moderation policies, no matter how much or how little is written. The aggrieved can claim, "x" wrote an equivalent thing and why wasn't "x's" post moderated? Given there is some discretion amongst the staff, the system may never appear to be fair across the board for everybody.

The best thing to do (and we know this already), at least for the long term members who want to be here, don't treat the site like a bar room brawl. We all have it in ourselves to write respectful posts even if we are responding to someone who appears to be an idiot.

 

[Weaselboy]

We do not allow the posting of personal attacks, insults, harassment, inappropriate language, or spam. We reserve the right to remove any post that does not contribute to friendly discussion, derails the discussion with off-topic material or goes against applicable laws.

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201146626-MacRumors-Registration-Agreement

The registration agreement everybody sees when they make an account covers much of what you mentioned.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Understood... I don't know that tossing everything out is the answer, but I agree in general it could sure be shortened up.

We sort of follow your second suggestion in threads where there are a bunch of problematic posts. Usually you will see it posted as a moderator note something like this:

I've seen these notes in threads on occasion, and I think the affect is beneficial, much more so I believe than sending posters warning messages, which make the receiver feel like they are being sent to their room without supper. No single person is ever responsible for topic creep.

Another thought to add here is that I have rarely come across a discussion board that the members complain is under-moderated, unless they get totally overrun with nasty, confrontational posters, or spam. For the most part I think we've grown quite accustomed to the idea that online forums are a bit of a free-for-all, and that the stuff we don't like can be ignored. The far more frequent complaint I hear is that they over-moderated. It seems the general trend these days is to not try to keep such a tight rein on them that the members feel like they are walking on eggs.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

.............
Another thought to add here is that I have rarely come across a discussion board that the members complain is under-moderated, unless they get totally overrun with nasty, confrontational posters, or spam. For the most part I think we've grown quite accustomed to the idea that online forums are a bit of a free-for-all, and that the stuff we don't like can be ignored. The far more frequent complaint I hear is that they over-moderated. It seems the general trend these days is to not try to keep such a tight rein on them that the members feel like they are walking on eggs.

Perhaps.

Perhaps it comes down to age, generational stuff, technological advances and the fearlessness, distance and disinhibition some keyboard warriors feel when protected by new norms and forms of etiquette, maybe the First Amendment, and the mask of anonymity, but, I , for one, deplore a world where online communication and forums are supposed to be "a free-for-all", and where insult and the desire to give offence under the guise of "free speech" may trump online debate.

And no, some of us have not quite "become accustomed" to this, and I doubt that we ever will, not fully. This is because much of the online world fails to make the distinction between robust (and respectful) disagreement, and exchanging or trading insults, sometimes confusing the latter with the former.

In those situations, the loudest, crudest and most boorish voice often succeeds in silencing those who disagree.

Actually, while "making members feel that they are walking on eggs" may seem excessive, I see nothing wrong with encouraging the cultivation of an online environment where members have to think about how they intend to say what they want to say before they attack a keyboard, compose a post, and press "post reply".

 

[Weaselboy]

Another thought to add here is that I have rarely come across a discussion board that the members complain is under-moderated...

I think it depends on the type of problem being moderated. For example, there is a long thread here with members complaining about trolling in Apple related topics and asking for more moderation. But I agree being too strict and removing any posts that are just having a bit of fun or joking can suck the fun out of the forums.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps.

Perhaps it comes down to age, generational stuff, technological advances and the fearlessness, distance and disinhibition some keyboard warriors feel when protected by new norms and forms of etiquette, maybe the First Amendment, and the mask of anonymity, but, I , for one, deplore a world where online communication and forums are supposed to be "a free-for-all", and where insult and the desire to give offence under the guise of "free speech" may trump online debate.

And no, some of us have not quite "become accustomed" to this, and I doubt that we ever will, not fully. This is because much of the online world fails to make the distinction between robust (and respectful) disagreement, and exchanging or trading insults, sometimes confusing the latter with the former.

In those situations, the loudest, crudest and most boorish voice often succeeds in silencing those who disagree.

Actually, while "making members feel that they are walking on eggs" may seem excessive, I see nothing wrong with encouraging the cultivation of an online environment where members have to think about how they intend to say what they want to say before they attack a keyboard, compose a post, and press "post reply".

I've already said at least twice that personal attacks, insults and harassment should not be allowed. I am quite sure I was abundantly clear on that point, and if I wasn't, then here it again. The balance of my point was that thread drift is not the same order problem, it is never created by only one poster, and doesn't result from the kind of issues that are associated with trolling-type behaviors. Placing more emphasis on the worst issues and the posters who create them, and less on the more trivial ones and the posters who stray into them, that is my suggestion. This is in fact what most boards do for moderation, in my experience.

I've also been quite clear that I see nothing wrong with moderator intervention in threads when they stray from the topic. My point is a preference for these in-thread interventions rather than sending out warnings messages. I think the former method is far more effective.
[doublepost=1537806337][/doublepost]

I think it depends on the type of problem being moderated. For example, there is a long thread here with members complaining about trolling in Apple related topics and asking for more moderation. But I agree being too strict and removing any posts that are just having a bit of fun or joking can suck the fun out of the forums.

Right, sure. And as I've said, trolling behavior should be addressed, no question. It's the more benign issues that I believe can be handled with a softer hand, and probably more effectively that way too.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

I think it depends on the type of problem being moderated. For example, there is a long thread here with members complaining about trolling in Apple related topics and asking for more moderation. But I agree being too strict and removing any posts that are just having a bit of fun or joking can suck the fun out of the forums.

The long thread in question is about an existing phenomenon, problem that is not handled properly.
There are members in MR who do nothing but trolling and taunting.
These are the cases when "sucking the fun" of trolls "out of the Forum" would make this a better place.
Trolling maybe "a bit of fun or joking" for you, but surely not for us.

 

[44267547]

It’s a massive undertaking to be a moderator on this site and I feel they do the best they can, even though it doesn’t always appease to everybody else’s satisfaction in every situation. Moderation is based on discretion, discretion is *variable*, because there are so many different types of intricacies with rule violations that have Multiple avenues to be addressed. But, if it wasn’t for the moderators on this site, I certainly would not participate. Likely a polar opposite of some others opinions on here, but I appreciate the moderator staff, that not only enforce rule violations, but actually take the time to discuss tech related topics with other members as well.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

...I appreciate the moderator staff, that not only enforce rule violations, but actually take the time to discuss tech related topics with other members as well.

There is no disagreement in this regard.

 

[Weaselboy]

Trolling maybe "a bit of fun or joking" for you, but surely not for us.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not mean at all that trolling comments should be allowed.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

...I did not mean at all that trolling comments should be allowed.

That is good to know.

 

[IJ Reilly]

There is no disagreement in this regard.

Exactly. I can't vouch for what anyone else believes, but I don't see anyone arguing against the need for moderation, and I (for one) am certainly not expecting to always be pleased at any given moment. My suggestions are for concentrating the moderator's limited time on the largest issues (we all know what those are), and maybe not sweating the small stuff quite so much. I am also advocating for simpler and more direct rules, which now that I think about it, if they were succinct enough, could be posted at the top of every page to serve as a constant reminder of what is and what isn't allowed. I believe the work of the moderators should actually be made easier, not harder.
[doublepost=1537889981][/doublepost]

The long thread in question is about an existing phenomenon, problem that is not handled properly.
There are members in MR who do nothing but trolling and taunting.
These are the cases when "sucking the fun" of trolls "out of the Forum" would make this a better place.
Trolling maybe "a bit of fun or joking" for you, but surely not for us.

That response was to my example from many years ago when some of us were swapping puns. Somebody apparently took a dislike to it, and they were deleted from the thread.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

The long thread in question is about an existing phenomenon, problem that is not handled properly.
There are members in MR who do nothing but trolling and taunting.
These are the cases when "sucking the fun" of trolls "out of the Forum" would make this a better place.
Trolling maybe "a bit of fun or joking" for you, but surely not for us.

Right but I think sometimes its hard to find that fine line between what you call trolling and someone else calls joking around. A lot of it has to do with intent which is hard enough to figure out sometimes in real life, next to impossible sometimes here in netville.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Right but I think sometimes its hard to find that fine line between what you call trolling and someone else calls joking around. A lot of it has to do with intent which is hard enough to figure out sometimes in real life, next to impossible sometimes here in netville.

Actually, it is not that difficult, as intent and context - and respect - are key elements in this discussion.

Thus, to my mind, any post that sneers at, attacks, or seeks to insult or offend a poster - rather than a post that seeks to challenge their position, stance, opinions, views - would come close to crossing the line between what is a trolling post and one that is not.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

Right but I think sometimes its hard to find that fine line between what you call trolling and someone else calls joking around. A lot of it has to do with intent which is hard enough to figure out sometimes in real life, next to impossible sometimes here in netville.

The cases I referred to in post #183 are clear and the intentions are obvious as per the Forum Rules:

Trolling. Posts that appear to be designed to cause argument or irritate rather than contribute to a constructive discussion are considered trolling and will be treated as such.

Trolling. Do not post in order to anger other members or intentionally cause negative reactions. For a given post, this can be a subjective call, but a pattern of such posting or an especially egregious case will get you banned.

 

[old mac]

Actually, it is not that difficult, as intent and context - and respect - are key elements in this discussion.

Thus, to my mind, any post that sneers at, attacks, or seeks to insult or offend a poster - rather than a post that seeks to challenge their position, stance, opinions, views - would come close to crossing the line between what is a trolling post and one that is not.

I also think when someone is intentionally acting obtuse, it is trolling. Being disingenuous is just another way of lying.
[doublepost=1537901169][/doublepost]

Right but I think sometimes its hard to find that fine line between what you call trolling and someone else calls joking around. A lot of it has to do with intent which is hard enough to figure out sometimes in real life, next to impossible sometimes here in netville.

I agree.

 

[D.T.]

Actually, it is not that difficult, as intent and context - and respect - are key elements in this discussion.

Thus, to my mind, any post that sneers at, attacks, or seeks to insult or offend a poster - rather than a post that seeks to challenge their position, stance, opinions, views - would come close to crossing the line between what is a trolling post and one that is not.

That's the amateurs There's a contingent of way more sophisticated trolls, who don't make their intent so easy to parse, but skulk around covertly, creating just as much chaos.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

That's the amateurs There's a contingent of way more sophisticated trolls, who don't make their intent so easy to parse, but skulk around covertly, creating just as much chaos.

True, but while they skate on the edges, there is a tone to their posts, along with some snide remarks - often attacking a poster (rather than their position, or stance) even if tangentially.

Above all, the contributions from such individuals rarely if ever offer anything positive, such as advice, or help, or support; rather, the tone is often one of a jaunty negativity, almost daring a response (preferably intemperate).

 

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, it is not that difficult, as intent and context - and respect - are key elements in this discussion.

Thus, to my mind, any post that sneers at, attacks, or seeks to insult or offend a poster - rather than a post that seeks to challenge their position, stance, opinions, views - would come close to crossing the line between what is a trolling post and one that is not.

The standard should be at least partially based on the results of the comment. Some forms of what we might call "sneering" (sarcasm, for instance) can be interpreted as an insult, and devolve into a flame war. If it does, then it was over the line. If it is just a bit of casual sarcasm that doesn't provoke an offense/insult response, then how does it matter? It's the perceived need to interpret intent and then preempt any possible shoot back that generates problems for posters and moderators alike. Keep an eye on what happens, then you know. That will either create cause for moderation, or not.
[doublepost=1537907474][/doublepost]

Right but I think sometimes its hard to find that fine line between what you call trolling and someone else calls joking around. A lot of it has to do with intent which is hard enough to figure out sometimes in real life, next to impossible sometimes here in netville.

Exactly. So why bother trying to interpret intent?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Exactly. So why bother trying to interpret intent?

Because that is how you differentiate between trolling posts and those that aren't, but might be crudely or uncouthly articulated posts expressing dissent or disagreement.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

The standard should be at least partially based on the results of the comment. Some forms of what we might call "sneering" (sarcasm, for instance) can be interpreted as an insult, and devolve into a flame war. If it does, then it was over the line. If it is just a bit of casual sarcasm that doesn't provoke an offense/insult response, then how does it matter? It's the perceived need to interpret intent and then preempt any possible shoot back that generates problems for posters and moderators alike. Keep an eye on what happens, then you know. That will either create cause for moderation, or not.
[doublepost=1537907474][/doublepost]

Exactly. So why bother trying to interpret intent?

It could be the difference between doing nothing and a warning/suspension/banning.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Because that is how you differentiate between trolling posts and those that aren't, but might be crudely or uncouthly articulated posts expressing dissent or disagreement.

I provided an alternative to the perceived need to make intent judgements in the first part of my post.
[doublepost=1537911503][/doublepost]

It could be the difference between doing nothing and a warning/suspension/banning.

Something like that, yes. Not trying to come up with a complete plan here (that's up to others), just some general ideas for an approach that would give the moderators more time to deal with the real problems. My experience from other boards is that more is allowed to be said without intervention. The interventions come as-needed, not as anticipated.

 

[MacNut]

The mods have said in the past that they stay out of certain forums and just wait for reports to come in first. I don’t see how that approach works. Cops need to patrol neighborhoods to meet the people and gauge the area. Maybe the moderators should take the same approach. Station them in forums that they patrol to be able to weed out the trouble makers. You can’t have mods just randomly hunting down complaints but instead become active in every corner of the site.

 

[I7guy]

I don't think it's as easy as stationing a mod on every street corner and it's not like they have to catch anybody "real-time" making a bad post. And it won't a difference to the "I've been singled out or treated unfairly or the site is already over-moderated crowd." Nothing is going to please everybody. (And this is not to say things couldn't be better or different). But having a user-driven reporting system, means the community at large are the eyes and ears working in tandem with the mods to smooth over the unruly.