It seems that everything and I mean everything in life these days has become "tribalized" from politics to anything else. It seems you can not like one without hating or putting down the other. I use both Macs and Win 10 machines. I like them both almost equally. I have an Android work phone (Samsung Galaxy) and I must say I really despise using it but to each their own. Anyhow it would be nice if everyone would dial things down on negative comments particularly when it is very clear they have no idea what they are even commenting on.
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.
The community is a bit awful
- Thread starter iHorseHead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I'm OK with people bashing products and companies. Bashing people by calling the community awful is not OK.
The main problem for me is that people often present their emotions more strongly than their reasoning. But, this is just how people have always behaved. The reasons why people won't use Xiaomi devices are probably quite varied; we just hear the vitriol.
I find plenty of negative and positive comments about Apple and other brands on this forum. My impression of the mix is certainly driven by which particular threads I've read. I often read threads that discuss technical problems with Apple hardware or software. If that were all I read, then my impression would be that this forum is generally negative about Apple.
My suspicion is that the OP has some loyalty to the Xiaomi brand and found some emotionally charged, negative comments hard to take. If so, they have my sympathy; that can be really unpleasant.
The main problem for me is that people often present their emotions more strongly than their reasoning. But, this is just how people have always behaved. The reasons why people won't use Xiaomi devices are probably quite varied; we just hear the vitriol.
I find plenty of negative and positive comments about Apple and other brands on this forum. My impression of the mix is certainly driven by which particular threads I've read. I often read threads that discuss technical problems with Apple hardware or software. If that were all I read, then my impression would be that this forum is generally negative about Apple.
My suspicion is that the OP has some loyalty to the Xiaomi brand and found some emotionally charged, negative comments hard to take. If so, they have my sympathy; that can be really unpleasant.
I’m convinced that these outrage threads are used primarily to farm karma.
I agree with you, however for the news section in these forums this is very different.
The moderation there is far too harsh. It feels (as many others have pointed out), the moderation team here is far to homogenous. To the point where good ON TOPIC discussion is stifled.
How many times are the mods going to be “insulted” as to the perceived demographics of the team?
Not to mention the thread is the “community is awful”, whilst the post claims the “moderation is too harsh”. Seems those two go against one another.
Not to mention the thread is the “community is awful”, whilst the post claims the “moderation is too harsh”. Seems those two go against one another.
Agreed -- this particular criticism seems off base to me. I mean complaining about the "perceived demographics" of the moderators or claiming that they are "too homogenous" (I really have to wonder how someone can form a basis for such an assertion) is really irrelevant to the issue of whether the moderators are fair and are doing good job.
The PSRI subforum had some offensive stuff going on and it obviously presented some serious challenges for the moderators. It's gone now though. In general, the rest of the site seems to have a far more positive tone and tenor IMHO.
^. And when Arn closed PRSI permanently, I believe there were comments saying ‘This isn’t’ going to end well’ or ‘PRSI will never end..’. Well, guess what? Those members that were the problem, seemingly have now left the site, which seems to be running _much_ more fluently without issue.
For the record, I also consider the ‘community’, to be a core group of members who have been around here for a while, which I found to be very interactive and cordial with discussion. The most hostitly I’ve seen on this site in the community over the years, typically stems in the iPhone forum, where it’s usually the same re-hashed arguments and exhausted trolling tactics.
For the record, I also consider the ‘community’, to be a core group of members who have been around here for a while, which I found to be very interactive and cordial with discussion. The most hostitly I’ve seen on this site in the community over the years, typically stems in the iPhone forum, where it’s usually the same re-hashed arguments and exhausted trolling tactics.
Last edited:
Genuinely curious, what does _unablovated_ mean? I’m just not familiar with that term.
Did you mean….unallocated?
Thanks for clarifying.
Where can one cash in said karma?
No. In honor of some some folks, I decided to throw random syllables together. No such word, really. But almost sounds like it could be.
I suspect they meant unallocated. Some times auto correct doesn’t work properly, which causes confusion in posts.
It’s like when I spell ‘I’m a Herdfan’, Siri will somehow input Hrafn. Really strange how that works.
Last edited:
Seems like the biggest problems were ablovated. 😆
Good point, the MR forums are one of the more cordial of sites out there; many are toxic wastelands of crap-posts.
Why is commenting on - and yes, querying - the possible lack of diversity among the mods on MR considered to be "insulting" - rather than an action that is merely pointing out - or, drawing attention to - something that may be bleedingly, blindingly, depressingly, and painfully, all too obvious in influencing how moderation decisions may have been taken?
Last edited:
their supposed race has nothing to do with their actions. judge mods by the content of their character, not the color of their skin
In such circumstances, I would argue that mods may be judged by their decisions, which, in turn, are informed by a number of factors, such as their character, their ethnicity, their gender, their social class, their interactions with their colleagues, and their interpretation of the rules of the site.
Not consciously, perhaps (re race any more than gender, but both are relevant, as indeed is social class), but unconsciously, or sub-consciously, I respectfully submit, that such attitudes re race, ethnicty, gender, may influence interpretations of posts, which in turn, may influence moderation decisions.
This may not matter much - or, all that much, or, too much - on an individual level, but, I respectfully suggest, that when one has a preponderance of one group, or type, of person - i.e. when many, or most mods come from one ethnicity, one social class, one gender - then a sort of collective group think may arise when it comes to determining how one should interpret some posts that may be considered, or deemed, to transgress the rules of the site.
While this may be entirely natural, in the circumstances, it is also a very good argument for seeking greater diversity when recruiting individuals to the ranks of the mods, if only to broaden the perspective of the staff on site to some extent.
Last edited:
its a direct claim that ones demographics makes them incapable of rational thought, which is bigoted. you also havent presented any examples of that being the case either. i guarantee you wouldn't tolerate such a claim if it was directed towards any other race or gender.
In my opinion, Arn has made it clear recently, that MR is about reporting tech news as it mainly relates to Apple. MR isn't about being a social voice for the internet at large much less trying to socially engineer social policies. As such, having a diverse voice (as to gender, social class etc.) amongst the mod staff has nothing to do with adjudicating rules that don't relate to moderating an ongoing social agenda, in my opinion.
If people want to be a voice and impetus for social policy change, there are plenty of other places on the internet for that kind fo thing.
I never asserted - let alone stated - that such a demographic is incapable of "rational thought".
Rather, my argument is that if everyone comes from a similar background (re ethnicity, gender, social class), their perspective might - of necessity - be rather limited, and this limited perspective may influence decisions that they take.
For, other perspectives and lived experiences do exist.
And the wider population of the world, and the wider membership of this site, are not confined to individuals from one ethnicity, one social class, and one gender, and the site might do well to reflect that to a greater extent than I suspect that it does at present.
Actually, here, in this thread, and in this context, I am not necessarily discussing (nor am I attempting to discuss) what you describe as "social policy change" or essaying to "socially engineer social policies".
Rather - in the world of tech - I am attempting to point out that limiting the right to take (and enforce) decisions, in their capacity as mods, or admins, (in MR, or in Silicon Valley, or any such similar places) to individuals who come (largely) from one ethicity, one social class and one gender, serves to constrain, or limit, or restrict, one's perspective, one's knowledge, and one's understanding of the wider world within which one may hope to trade, or do business.
Last edited:
I think the assumption is that only a diversified team of moderators can be fair in the enforcement of the rules. I agree with you that the assumption is off base. I mean a diversified crew of umpires does not necessarily call a better baseball game than an undiversified crew. I am not saying that umpire crew should not be diverse mind you (I think it should be) -- but only that it is not necessarily relevant as to how the crew is performing its job.
The elephant in the room is the assumption that the moderation team is "homogenous" as one poster claimed. This is an unfounded assumption and I challenge any of the posters in this thread to explain the basis of these assertions. I know nothing of the make-up of the moderation team here -- other than certain screen names and avatars. If people know more than they should provide more information. Otherwise, I think this topic is just an abstract hypothetical and is not being proffered as a concrete good-faith suggestion for site improvement.
My opinion is I don’t agree with this opinion.
But I have a suspicion as talk turns to the moderator/staff perceived demographics and the opinion that this perceived demographics limits effective moderation, this thread is going to go the way of others before it.
We have asked for transparency in regards to the makeup of the mod team. MR has not been forthcoming in this regard leading to the conclusion that they are embarrassed with the lack of diversity.
- Status