Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
He wants smellysox to be moderated because he appears to be a racist.

I also get that impression, but nevertheless the quotes from smellysox's posts do not violate any forum rules and make perfect sense in context. Moderating them would boil down to simply censoring someones opinion.

which is exactly what he's saying. At the moment people are being moderated for a sense of humour not shared by the moderators.

thats how I read it.
 
I've been extremely happy with the moderation here. I was a longtime mod over on iMore, and resigned because the mod team was overbearing, and out of hand.

Trust me, it's heaven over here.
 
I'm not that active on here but I can still say that the moderators do a good job. Without them, this place would be a troll house so, OP, don't accuse moderators by accusing them of "letting downright racism". Go to the political section on here and tell me what do you think of the forum now. :) (although honestly I wish that section wasn't here to be honest)
 
I've been extremely happy with the moderation here. I was a longtime mod over on iMore, and resigned because the mod team was overbearing, and out of hand.

Trust me, it's heaven over here.

Was wondering where you went. I don't even bother visiting their forums anymore. Seems like they made anyone with a heartbeat a mod or some sort of advisor or something there. Gone to hell.
 
Although I'm relatively new as a member, I've followed this forum for years. I also belong to other special interest forums. I find the overall quality of MacRumors excellent. The biggest variable I've noticed is the difference in the type of members that have joined in the last few years. A bit less fanatical, a bit more open minded. Now after a few months of participation it seems to me moderators are quite fair.
 
Everyone on the staff is from all parts of the world with varying life experiences, ages and cultures. In my years on staff with them, I've gotten to know them very well. Together they work on the issues of the forum in a very open manner (amongst themselves in the backroom) where everyone sees what everyone else is doing. There is no room or tolerance for one moderator to go off on their own and unfairly treat a member of the forum.

Does that mean every moderation is discussed in public before a decision is made, or are there occasions when a moderator will make a unilateral decision without consulting others?
 
Does that mean every moderation is discussed in public before a decision is made,
Moderation is never discussed in public. I am surprised this thread hasn't been closed down yet.

----------

... or are there occasions when a moderator will make a unilateral decision without consulting others?
...
What can happen is that someone is notified of a rules violation but they feel that we let a similar violation go. What actually occurs in those cases is that the moderation team is unaware of the other violation. The site is too busy for us to review each and every post, and that's why we rely on the members to report any violation they see.
 
No, I don't.
Merely writing "They are not two entirely separate topics" in bold doesn't create a contextual connection between two different topics.

Exactly.

In fact, from what I can see, the only actual connection between these two topics - was the OP.

I'll add a a further thought. In the absence of the sort of subtle (and not so subtle) further cues that face to face encounters allow you to decipher when humour is deployed, online humour can be an exceedingly subjective thing, and not at all obvious to anyone except the person who beeves his post humorous.
 
Does that mean every moderation is discussed in public before a decision is made, or are there occasions when a moderator will make a unilateral decision without consulting others?

Firstly, no moderation is done publicly.

Try not to think of it in terms of black and white because there are always gray areas in life, including MacRumors moderation. Trying to put the moderator staff into a box and expecting cookie-cutter reactions to every possible thing is unfair and irrational of an expectation.

Sure there are things moderators do on their own, and do so all the time. Things like deleting spam, one-word-posts, obvious frivolous post deletes, insult clean up and so on. Keep in mind some post reports are unique and require discussion and input from multiple moderators. Those are the case-by-case reports that are dealt with as a team.

Attempting to corner the staff into preconceived ideas of how you think they should act is an unjust concept and if the tables were reversed, or if you were part of the staff, I can assure you that you'd not take too kindly to being treated that way.

They have a multitude of guidelines in the backroom that would probably shock most people if they knew how much there was to know and follow, especially considering this is merely an Internet forum. It rivals many companies policy manuals in it's volume and detail.

I hope you can trust me when I say that the staff doesn't moderate all willy-nilly on their own with no accountability or regard for the members.
 
Does that mean every moderation is discussed in public before a decision is made, or are there occasions when a moderator will make a unilateral decision without consulting others?

I think what the poster means is, is every moderation decision discussed publicly (as in openly) between the moderators, not out in the public forums... or are some decisions made by one moderator without discussion.

I could be wrong, but that is how I read it

Carry on...
 
Im really starting to think that the balance of moderation, particularly with regard to PRSI on this forum is ridiculous...... It seems anything involving any kind of humor is being moderated, yet downright racism is being allowed?

Is there any real justification for this...... Its getting to the point where that forum is just becoming unusable. Is it really worth having discussion forums for PRSI type issues if the moderation can't be made to look inbalanced (regardless of whether its intentional or not).

My friend, what you are explaining is a MacRumors issue for ages. I have been in this site before the community section was open and that was like 10 years ago I believe. I have been moderated and blocked and this is like my 3rd or 4th nick.

There are kids moderating and there are smart people moderating too. My believe is that some moderators are two faces people who kiss butts to become moderators and then they are all about ego. As in any organization there are bad apples and some get some positions because they learn to sell themselves well. And it seems that between moderators the cover themselves up too.

Probably the site is too big and too many people, who knows. Hard to handle.
 
My believe is that some moderators are two faces people who kiss butts to become moderators and then they are all about ego.

That may be your belief and that's fine, but it's completely untrue.
 
Last edited:
Does that mean every moderation is discussed in public before a decision is made, or are there occasions when a moderator will make a unilateral decision without consulting others?

If you mean discussed among the mods, no. There are about 70 reports per day, and there is just not time or really the need for the group to review each report. With a good number of the daily reports it is very very obvious what needs to be done and I think anybody in this thread would handle those reports the same way. I am talking here about spam reports or very clear insults. It is the remaining reports that are in the grey area mentioned where we get opinions from other moderators.
 
...My believe is that some moderators are two faces people who kiss butts to become moderators and then they are all about ego. As in any organization there are bad apples and some get some positions because they learn to sell themselves well.

No, there are extensive considerations and discussions before anyone is invited to be a moderator. The discussions are transparent for all current mods and admins. You can read more about the process in this section of the FAQ.

It would be a very, very hard job to pull the wool over our eyes. With the system in place, "kissing butts" or "bad apples" simply do not become moderators.

And it seems that between moderators the cover themselves up too.

The system is set up so that doesn't happen. Every action a moderator takes is thoroughly documented, and in addition leaves a digital trail. As has already been pointed out, moderators often take care of routine problems (spam, clear insults or name-calling and other black-and-white cases) without asking the others for their opinions, but as soon as a moderator is unsure, a discussion is started. Administrators often weigh in if the moderators are divided in their opinions, or are unsure about a case that seems to be ambiguous.

Finally, the Contact Us appeal system is designed specifically so that members can ask or complain about moderation. Sometime (very often, unfortunately) it's a case of a member not having read the rules, sometimes is a case of a spammer trying to fool us into letting him back in, and sometimes it's a case of our having made a mistake that needs to be reversed.

What we sometimes see, is members who don't like the (correct, under the forum rules) moderation done to them, or don't like the fact that we didn't moderate the posts they reported, lash out by blaming the moderators for some form of corruption. You've gotta remember that this is a volunteer gig. We do it because we love the site, period. We have clear guidelines to help us, and don't have a problem with reviewing the moderation we've done, when asked to.

It's impossible for a huge, diverse membership to agree completely on set of rules or how they're enforced. We get that. That's why we have a SSF for general questions and suggestions, and the contact system for specific issues.

We do our best. We're not power hungry. We're normal parents, students, professionals, wives, husbands etc. Either members believe that, or they don't.
 
Moderation is never discussed in public. …

Whilst that's generally good practice, I must say: much of this topic is both enlightening and reassuring.

… particularly with regard to PRSI …

I'm rarely there but when I was, for a while, I gained an impression that moderation was respectful of diversity, and so on.

… if you see posts that you feel are violating the rules, report them and the moderation team will look into it.

If you wish to find out why posts that you reported weren't moderated, please use Contact Us to ask the admins why. They'll be happy to explain.

EDIT:
Moderation FAQ

… no response. …

Hint

The signed-in view of https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests is useful. It took me too long to discover the existence of that list of activities (activities also known as requests), but when I did: its presence was calming.

The moderation staff works as a team, discussing the reports and coming to a consensus. Its difficult to have unbalanced moderation when we have such a diverse group of moderators.

What can happen is that someone is notified of a rules violation but they feel that we let a similar violation go. What actually occurs in those cases is that the moderation team is unaware of the other violation. The site is too busy for us to review each and every post, and that's why we rely on the members to report any violation they see.

I'm sure I'm repeating what the others say but I wanted to convey that we work as a team and we frequently discuss any reports that come in.

With an emphasis on excessive business (too busy), I'm sometimes concerned that I report too many posts.

(In the past I was relatively happy to overlook off-topic content. Experience here, in private, has taught me to be much stricter. As far as I can tell, most of my reports do not lead to edition or removal of off-topic content – even when most of what's on a page is entirely off-topic – but I always suspected that the site was excessively busy, so I choose to overlook the apparent lack of reaction to some reports.)

I'm a retired moderator of this very forum and I can honestly say that the moderator team here does the job to the very best of their ability and is as fair and balanced as anyone could ask.

Everyone on the staff is from all parts of the world with varying life experiences, ages and cultures. In my years on staff with them, I've gotten to know them very well. Together they work on the issues of the forum in a very open manner (amongst themselves in the backroom) where everyone sees what everyone else is doing. There is no room or tolerance for one moderator to go off on their own and unfairly treat a member of the forum.

Most tasks are routine and taken care of quickly. Other times, the issue is more complex or sensitive at which point the team comes together to figure it out and decide the best course of action, or inaction if deemed appropriate. Sometimes, it takes a while, days or even weeks to resolve certain things.

The decisions they make are always done in the best interest of the forum and the members involved. That doesn't always mean they get it right, and if so, there is always a means of redress. Following the established rules of Contact with the staff, I've seen moderation reversed, apologies issued and wrongs made right after private discussions with parties involved. But, sometimes, members don't always get what they want and/or disagree on fundamental issues and that is the way it is.

The biggest thing for us all to keep in mind is that everyone is different and we all come from different backgrounds and cultures and sometimes issues can never be reconciled between them. At that point, its usually best to move on, remembering that we're all human, including the staff of MacRumors.

+1

… The thread wasn't to discuss actual moderation, the thread was to discuss unbalanced moderation, i.e. moderation of … or … vs lack of moderation for …

Whilst I didn't use the word 'unbalanced' I did, privately, use a comparable word.

If it helps to reassure other readers: in the Zendesk area, something from a couple of months ago reminds me that where previously I was dissatisfied, eventually I rated a resolved request as 'Good, I'm satisfied' with the following comment, which I'm happy to share publicly:

"I sense that deeper consideration has been given to recent feedback. Some of my responses have been less than calm … I apologise. When I sense inequality, I sometimes react badly."​

Related

How is the "Common Sense" rule moderated?

Do not post piracy-related links in threads

… and so on.

I do frequently see content, linked from discussions, that some readers might treat as piracy. Unauthorised redistribution of copyright material, and so on.

There was the temptation to report offending content directly to copyright holders – especially when I sensed a combination of inequality/imbalance, plus mean-mindedness by some readers/reporters – but I refrained.

Is it common sense to ignore a stranger's breach of copyright, if that breach is a well-intentioned and understandable response to questionable behaviours by the copyright holder? I don't expect written answers to that question (key phrases: diversity, excessively busy), but it is a question that I ask myself whenever I choose to overlook such things.

----

Peace
 
That may be your belief and that's fine, but it's completely untrue.

Especially the bit about the kids moderating the site. That's one demographic we don't have well represented, although there are many young users on the site.

I really hesitate to try and compute an average age of the moderating staff for fear that I will incriminate myself. :p

B
 
Especially the bit about the kids moderating the site. That's one demographic we don't have well represented, although there are many young users on the site.

I really hesitate to try and compute an average age of the moderating staff for fear that I will incriminate myself. :p

B

Ha, I never though about that. I think I may be the youngest at 27.. Basically a spring chicken :eek:;)
 
Especially the bit about the kids moderating the site. That's one demographic we don't have well represented, although there are many young users on the site.

I really hesitate to try and compute an average age of the moderating staff for fear that I will incriminate myself. :p

B

I considered addressing the age of the staff, but figured I'd leave it alone. :p

Ha, I never though about that. I think I may be the youngest at 27.. Basically a spring chicken :eek:;)

I was thinking of you and one other being in your late 20's as the youngest of everyone. Myself at 37 would probably be closer to the average age of all the staff. I dare not speculate on the oldest of them though. :cool:
 
Dead stoats and moderate weasels

... Humor is important on a board like this, but it can be tricky, too. It's much harder to convey in a clear way, because facial expression and tone of voice aren't there. In other words, a lot of the context is gone. In addition, members occasionally use "but I was only joking" as a means to get around the rules that prohibit insults and name-calling.

We try hard to allow as much humor as possible, because it's a good thing. But in some cases, after discussion among ourselves so as not to be dependent on one person's opinion, we'll decide that something is a rule violation rather than a joke. This is especially true when the "joke" comes at the expense of another member, but it can be applicable in other cases as well.

But no, no one is moderated because the moderators have a different sense of humor. :)

I just realised, my current location '174 Dead Stoat Road' could be misconstrued as a death threat to friends, colleagues or relatives of a moderator (Weaselboy). It's not!

It is, obscurely, a fictional address that my friends and I used whenever we signed the entry book at Focus.

Also in that book, we shared the same name: 'Go Go Gid'. I don't know which one of us dreamt that one up, but it was long before public use of the Internet. Now I know better (someone from Finland, apparently; plus some Romanian association) and if it's not too late: on behalf of the imaginary Gid family of the early 1980s (Go Go, Go Go, Go Go and me), I apologise to the members of the real Gid family.

(As young adults, none of us were mean. I recall us running away, like schoolkids, one night, from thugs at the club!)
 
So my believe is my believe but what I say from your perspective is untrue... BINGO! You see? Ego, arrogance. You just felt into what I was talking about.

Actually no, I haven't fallen into that at all. I speak the truth and nothing more. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

What evidence do you have to support the staff are arrogant and have big ego's?
 
Actually no, I haven't fallen into that at all. I speak the truth and nothing more. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

What evidence do you have to support the staff are arrogant and have big ego's?

Well said.

In general, I have found the moderation to have been pretty decent, usually reasonably fair-minded, balanced and quite tolerant.

As a rule, decisions are not made in a hurry, and there seem to have ben genuine attempts to try to see all sides of an issue before adjudicating on it.

Overall, I must say that I have been pretty impressed with the quality of moderation here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grahamperrin
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.