From my point of view, ie a MacRumors poster, to me it seems in the 3 examples cited, the first two are uninformed opinions that don't seem controversial. It's like saying "I don't believe the evidence that smoking is linked to cancer". Is that a (uniformed) controversial opinion in your view?Exactly how do you learn something, when the response is (according to you) "well, it depends". I mean, unless the lesson here is, don't use MR forums, because the rules are poorly written, and applied randomly.
- - Post merged: - -
Clarifying one specific phrase that could be interpreted two very different ways is not "every nuance".
If you/they can't agree/decide on whether the "controversial" applies to just political or to any PRSI-esque post, how on earth to you expect anyone to follow those rules.
You may as well say "don't post bad stuff. do post good stuff."
The word controversial, imo, is used to denote hot button topics that the site doesn't want in threads outside of PRSI. And (I'm only guessing) maybe there are some prior infractions, coupled with that particular PRSI type post that led to the suspension.
This is flat out not the way anonymous internet sites works. If you wanted a private conversation then the "contact us" button is the way to go. You posted this in a forum dedicated to "site feedback" and you find it frustrating that "backseat mods" respond to the posts? Some people view this as a community and, in my opinion, want to have as much as possible these days, a nice community experience to hang out in....and as such will respond to posts in this forum with their own opinions.To be honest I don't know what's more frustrating at this point, the ambiguous rule interpretations, or the sideline/backseat "mods" (no, not actual mods, but posting as if they have some stake in defending some imaginary tarnished honour of actual mods/etc) making posts that, to use a phrase I've seen here often recently, "age like milk".