I still think the mods here are not applying the rules equally between members
I don't think it's humanly possible to be completely fair in everyone's eyes on such a large forum. All we can do is strive to interpret the rules as accurately as possible in any given case, and to rely on the rest of the team for discussion to make sure we act as uniformly as possible. I don't think you can expect more of any group of humans.
Like when does discussion become bickering?
This varies from thread to thread of course. But a couple good rules of thumb are 1) when a back-and-forth between users is off topic and goes on and on, and/or 2) when the users involve start to violate the Rules for Appropriate Debate. These aren't hard-and-fast rules, but a good general yardstick for many instances.
When does getting dragged off subject by another person cross the line into getting the person trying to stay on topic moded instead of the person going off topic?
No one is ever dragged off topic by another user. If a user goes off topic or chooses to respond to an off-topic comment, then it's that user's responsibility and s/he is moderated for his or her own posts, regardless of what anyone else posts. You're responsible for your own posts.
I also think some of these rules are not laid out well enough which allow for this kind of moderation discrepancy. Maybe the solution is to revise the wording of the rules to leave less up to interpretation.
If you have suggestions for any of the rules, you are welcome and encouraged to start a general thread about the rule in the Site and Forum Feedback section. We're happy to discuss suggestions that can make the rules as clear as possible, and it's valuable for us to know exactly where the rules are unclear. We want them to be clear too! Please feel free to start a thread discussing a rule, just refrain from referring to specific moderation. General examples are fine though.
As long as the rules are not enforced equally it will breed resentment. If rules are applied equally and the rules aren't twisted and contorted in order for a mod to be able to "win" in a discussion or put someone in their place then receiving a moderation is much less likely to invoke a feeling of rage.
We do strive to moderate users consistently, but keep in mind that a user's moderation history will always influence how that user is moderated for a given violation. That means if a user with no violations bumps a post and another user with five reminders for bumping, bumps a post, those two users will be moderated differently for the same violation. Taking moderation histories into account is done so that moderation is fair.
We certainly never "twist" or "contort" rules, and moderators aren't trying to "win" anything. If we make a mistake and it's pointed out, we change it. Luckily, the fact that moderators work as a team and discuss before moderation is done means that we make fewer mistakes than we would make otherwise! We're not afraid to challenge each other when we disagree, luckily.
Moderators aren't interested in putting people in their places. The goals of moderation are to remind users about the rule involved, and to encourage users who post multiple violations to change their posting habits so they no longer need to be moderated.
Believe me, deleting users' posts and denying them access for periods of time isn't fun. It's the least fun thing we do, and very depressing.
Of course if that is the desired effect carry on it's working perfectly.
No matter how hard we try to do a good job, we know that some users just don't agree with our rules or how we moderate, no matter how often we explain. We hope and believe that those users will find a better fit on another forum.
I was obviously kidding about "Steve". The rest is exactly what is wrong with the section and why it needs to go- a never ending, over the top need to argue, be offended, scold and ultimately put people in their place for normal disagreement. You do it gently, which is unusual, but why do you feel compelled to do so?
It is axiomatic that the forum is almost universally a waste of time in terms of solving problems. The rest of Macrumours is full of answers and tips.
A relatively few feel good about themselves because they believe that they are making points that others actually care about. They don't, it is a mutual admiration society where likes are given in hopes that they will be returned by the other members in their tribe.
Massive time wasted that unquestionably takes away from more productive pursuits. As such, I have other things to so, and have nothing more to say beyond that the political section is a net negative and hurts Macrumours.
Isn't it just a matter of ignoring the PRSI? I can understand how it can be frustrating, but I don't see how it's hurting the rest of the site. It's only there for those who want to discuss those topics, and so that PRSI-type topics don't spill over into the tech sections.
