Why are the "Posting outside PRSI" rules applied unevenly?

[ericgtr12]

I'll just remind everyone of this:

Moderators and administrators are located around the globe, and are all volunteers. Speaking generally, we discuss when asked to clarify a point. If we were full time employees, it would be reasonable to expect quick respones. We are however neither full time nor employees.

TBH I think we do mange to response rather quickly in almost every instance, despite the "volunteers located in different time zones" aspect of the equation. Some things will take a bit longer, either due to the nature of the question or simply due to practical issues.

For those of us who post quite a bit, getting an "infraction" with one of the generic responses (often loosely applied or arbitrary) doesn't tell us exactly what was posted, in some cases it does but in others it doesn't. When that happens whatever the incident was has long blown over anyway.

Frankly, with such stringent rules here the lack of proper management/enforcement shows. It looks like everything is handled by Weaselboy and the appearance is that he has a huge backlog of these things to get to, if he's not being paid he should be. It also shows because the same rule that is applied to one person, often gets a pass for another, this inconsistency is frustrating and gives the appearance of bias.

 

[I7guy]

...
Frankly, with such stringent rules here the lack of proper management/enforcement shows. It looks like everything is handled by Weaselboy and the appearance is that he has a huge backlog of these things to get to, if he's not being paid he should be.

Start a gofundme page?

It also shows because the same rule that is applied to one person, often gets a pass for another, this inconsistency is frustrating and gives the appearance of bias.

Are you suggesting the exact same verbiage gets handled differently by different moderators based on who posted?

 

[annk]

For those of us who post quite a bit, getting an "infraction" with one of the generic responses (often loosely applied or arbitrary) doesn't tell us exactly what was posted, in some cases it does but in others it doesn't. When that happens whatever the incident was has long blown over anyway.

The semi-automated moderation message that are sent out include a quote of the moderated post at the bottom of the message. A short inline message explaining why a post is edited or deleted usually signals an issue that isn't the user's fault (like the post needed to be deleted because the post it quoted was deleted). In those situations, there is no quote. If you are ever in any doubt about the content of the post in question, just let us know.

Frankly, with such stringent rules here the lack of proper management/enforcement shows. It looks like everything is handled by Weaselboy and the appearance is that he has a huge backlog of these things to get to, if he's not being paid he should be. It also shows because the same rule that is applied to one person, often gets a pass for another, this inconsistency is frustrating and gives the appearance of bias.

Yes, the rules are strict. That's by design. Strict rules will of course not suit all users, but there are other tech sites out there that aren't necessarily as strict. Being a user here is by choice. The bottom line here is that if you post within the rules, you'll be fine. If you don't agree with the rules and moderation policies, you'll be unhappy.

As an administrator, I am of course part of the management and therefore can't comment on your accusation of "lack of proper management."

You say that it "looks like everything is handled by Weaselboy." That's something you simply can't know, not being privvy to what goes on backstage, and it couldn't be father from the truth. Moderation is a team effort. The moderators discuss and arrive at a decision, then decide among themselves which of them will deal with the administration and documentation involved.

I can also mention that there's no "huge backlog." As to rules being applied differently to different users, we've explained many times over the years that moderation history plays an important part in how a violation is handled. Two users will therefore not necessarily receive the same reaction for the same type of violation. If it's a post we haven't seen, however, that's another story. We can't moderate what we don't see.

Your accusation of bias is serious. This type of accusation shouldn't be thrown around loosely; we take this very seriously and expect users to do the same. I'll ask you to use the contact us form to make a formal complaint with concrete examples so we can do a thorough review.

 

[ericgtr12]

The semi-automated moderation message that are sent out include a quote of the moderated post at the bottom of the message. A short inline message explaining why a post is edited or deleted usually signals an issue that isn't the user's fault (like the post needed to be deleted because the post it quoted was deleted). In those situations, there is no quote. If you are ever in any doubt about the content of the post in question, just let us know.



Yes, the rules are strict. That's by design. Strict rules will of course not suit all users, but there are other tech sites out there that aren't necessarily as strict. Being a user here is by choice. The bottom line here is that if you post within the rules, you'll be fine. If you don't agree with the rules and moderation policies, you'll be unhappy.

As an administrator, I am of course part of the management and therefore can't comment on your accusation of "lack of proper management."

You say that it "looks like everything is handled by Weaselboy." That's something you simply can't know, not being privvy to what goes on backstage, and it couldn't be father from the truth. Moderation is a team effort. The moderators discuss and arrive at a decision, then decide among themselves which of them will deal with the administration and documentation involved.

I can also mention that there's no "huge backlog." As to rules being applied differently to different users, we've explained many times over the years that moderation history plays an important part in how a violation is handled. Two users will therefore not necessarily receive the same reaction for the same type of violation. If it's a post we haven't seen, however, that's another story. We can't moderate what we don't see.

Your accusation of bias is serious. This type of accusation shouldn't be thrown around loosely; we take this very seriously and expect users to do the same. I'll ask you to use the contact us form to make a formal complaint with concrete examples so we can do a thorough review.

Fair points on the backlog and the staff on the backend, but we know most of the time it is him handling them in PRSI by simple deduction of who's online and the style of the infraction. When you say "two users will therefore not necessarily receive the same reaction for the same type of violation." I would try to understand, to the user who receives an infraction for the exact same thing another one did not, it doesn't feel fair at all. From that perspective it is indeed biased, how else can it be viewed?

 

[arn]

FWIW we are talking about categorizing more news threads into political. In the past it was a rarer occurance but obviously things have changed a lot.

 

[AustinIllini]

Totally understand, @arn. I think what I struggle with is I ignore PRSI but then I miss the Apple-based political discussion which is far more relevant to me. Thanks for allowing for such a positive discussion in the feedback section.

 

[Apple_Robert]

FWIW we are talking about categorizing more news threads into political. In the past it was a rarer occurance but obviously things have changed a lot.

That is not going to be good for members who want to comment, but don’t want to go into the political forum due to the nature and usual tenor of posting in said forum.

Lately, it seems many members are purposefully turning a tech story political to get it sent to their favorite forum where politics and political bashing can occur.

It will be a real shame if more stories get sent to the romper room forum.

 

[AustinIllini]

That is not going to be good for members who want to comment, but don’t want to go into the political forum due to the nature and usual tenor of posting in said forum.

Lately, it seems many members are purposefully turning a tech story political to get it sent to their favorite forum where politics and political bashing can occur.

It will be a real shame if more stories get sent to the romper room forum.

Maybe the answer is to move the Political Apple discussion into the industry forum

 

[Apple_Robert]

Maybe the answer is to move the Political Apple discussion into the industry forum

That is another good solution. Another solution would be having more moderator oversight on news stories. By the time a mod intervenes, many political posts have already turned the tide of the discussion and the mod moves it to the romper room.

If I wanted to be talking law and politics full time, I would be trying to have a proper debate in the romper room forum. I don’t want to see MR become more political to try and placate a group of people who can’t seem to engage in solid intellectual debate without insults, petty name calling and logical fallacies everywhere. If Arn opens that door, the demand to make it wider will grow. MR will become a mess in many ways.

 

[I7guy]

That is another good solution. Another solution would be having more moderator oversight on news stories. By the time a mod intervenes, many political posts have already turned the tide of the discussion and the mod moves it to the romper room.

If I wanted to be talking law and politics full time, I would be trying to have a proper debate in the romper room forum. I don’t want to see MR become more political to try and placate a group of people who can’t seem to engage in solid intellectual debate without insults, petty name calling and logical fallacies everywhere. If Arn opens that door, the demand to make it wider will grow. MR will become a mess in many ways.

Or a separate filter* for political stories and PRSI. (Edit) It won’t stop threads from turning into a mess but at least PRSI posts could be filtered separately from political posts.

*checkbox selection etc

 

[Apple_Robert]

Or a separate filter* for political stories and PRSI.

*checkbox selection etc

I like that idea even better.

 

[arn]

Or a separate filter* for political stories and PRSI. (Edit) It won’t stop threads from turning into a mess but at least PRSI posts could be filtered separately from political posts.

*checkbox selection etc

I don't think I follow. Arn't PRSI and Political News separate already?

 

[I7guy]

I don't think I follow. Arn't PRSI and Political News separate already?

I don’t block political forums, but in the preferences section there is an option to “block political forums”. I am under the assumption that will block both PRSI and the political MR news feed from appearing in the “latest posts” on the main forum page. (If this is incorrect apologies for the confusion) Therefore I was wondering out loud, if there could be two checkboxes. One for the PRSI forum and the other for the political MR news forum.

 

[arn]

"Block Politics" just blocks the PRSI forum. Political News is separate and isn't specifically blocked by that. (Block Politics was really put in place for Taptalk users, since they can't use the ignore function)

For web users, if you want to block PRSI, you can use the Ignore function. That's the easiest way. And it should block it everywhere for you. Again, if you want to ignore Political News specifically too, you can ignore that separately.

arn

 

[annk]

I would try to understand, to the user who receives an infraction for the exact same thing another one did not, it doesn't feel fair at all. From that perspective it is indeed biased, how else can it be viewed?

You can choose to view it like this (and I'll mention that moderation escalation is already covered in the FAQ, but here we go):

1. A newbie posts a first post and calls another user a name. We start out by assuming that this means that 1) the user didn't bother to read the rules, or 2) read the rules but doesn't realize that on this site, we actually take the rules seriously. It might also be that the user has been used to another site where the rules are lax. The goal of moderation is to keep things going with as little interference as possible. So we send a reminder for the name-calling. In many cases, that's all that's needed. The user gets a second chance. The mild moderation reaction (reminder) is a better choice in this case, because for users with good intentions, bringing the thunder isn't necessary or particularly welcoming.
2. A user who's been around for a couple years has received a total of two or three reminders for name-calling within the last few months. The user once again posts content that includes name-calling. This time, moderation is escalated, and the user is given a two-day temporary suspension. This is 1) to show that yes, we mean business, and 2) to give the moderators a path to spending less time moderating serial rule-breakers. If the user continues along the same path, a permanent suspension is inevitable down the road.
3. A user has been around for many years and had many, many violations and disputes with us about the rules for a period of about two years, including escalated moderation for name-calling. Maybe the user has been rude and insulting in his/her contact messages as well - this is unfortunately not unusual. The escalated moderation might have included a few reminders, then short temporary suspensions, then a few instances of successively longer suspensions. The user then continues to post with no violations for over a year, before again calling another user a name. We might, given the totality of the situation, choose to send a reminder this time. In that reminder, we might add some text mentioning that the user was on a very good streak for a long time, let the user know that we saw and appreciated the cooperation, and encourage the user not to fall back into a bad habit because in that case moderation will need to be escalated quickly. Or we might just send the reminder. The point here is that given the long period of posting within the rules, we might de-escalate moderation. We take the big picture into account, not just the specific rule that was broken.

Before you ask me if the specific numbers apply in all cases, I will say no - these are just examples for the purpose of illustrating my point. The examples are ficitious and simplified for the sake of discussion, but typical.

The same violation is treated differently in the three cases. Disciplinary actions are based on the rule involved, the nature of the violation, and any history of prior violations. For repeated rules violations, discipline may increase from reminders to short time-outs to longer time-outs to a permanent ban. In other words, a one-day suspension for a rules violation can become a multi-day suspension the next time, and a user's moderation history is part of the picture.

Are there exceptions? Sure. Some rules are more serious than others. If a newbie starts off right off the bat with multiple insults, or if the first post contains hate speech, we are more likely to put the account in a permanent suspension immediately. Why? So we can get the user's attention and have a conversation about the rules.

We feel that this policy is the way in which we can be fair to each user, given their particular circumstances.

Remember that you can't see whether or not another user has gotten a warning or reminder. And to be frank, it's none of your business. Each user is responsible for his or her own posts, regardless of what anyone else posts. If users trust us to be as fair as humanly possible, worry less about how others are being moderated, and pay more attention to their own posts, discussions like this won't be necessary.

After all the explanations we've provided, either you trust that we moderate as fairly as possible or you don't. I think this trust is necessary to have a good experience here. If I don't trust how a site is run or trust the powers that be to treat me fairly, I go elsewhere.

 

[Weaselboy]

@ericgtr12 could part of the issue be that you are assuming we see and are okay with some posts with rules violations, when in reality we (mods) never saw said post? I see people send in reports often with comments like "why is this person allowed to say X" when I was moderated for the same thing. When that happens I often send a note to the member explaining we don't see all posts and can only act on what we see or what is reported.

As far as me doing most of the moderation, in your case I think it may be a time zone issue. I live in California and am on here in the early morning hours most days. So if you happen to be on in that same time frame, you are more likely to cross paths with me than some of the other mods.

 

[ericgtr12]

You can choose to view it like this (and I'll mention that moderation escalation is already covered in the FAQ, but here we go):

1. A newbie posts a first post and calls another user a name. We start out by assuming that this means that 1) the user didn't bother to read the rules, or 2) read the rules but doesn't realize that on this site, we actually take the rules seriously. It might also be that the user has been used to another site where the rules are lax. The goal of moderation is to keep things going with as little interference as possible. So we send a reminder for the name-calling. In many cases, that's all that's needed. The user gets a second chance. The mild moderation reaction (reminder) is a better choice in this case, because for users with good intentions, bringing the thunder isn't necessary or particularly welcoming.
2. A user who's been around for a couple years has received a total of two or three reminders for name-calling within the last few months. The user once again posts content that includes name-calling. This time, moderation is escalated, and the user is given a two-day temporary suspension. This is 1) to show that yes, we mean business, and 2) to give the moderators a path to spending less time moderating serial rule-breakers. If the user continues along the same path, a permanent suspension is inevitable down the road.
3. A user has been around for many years and had many, many violations and disputes with us about the rules for a period of about two years, including escalated moderation for name-calling. Maybe the user has been rude and insulting in his/her contact messages as well - this is unfortunately not unusual. The escalated moderation might have included a few reminders, then short temporary suspensions, then a few instances of successively longer suspensions. The user then continues to post with no violations for over a year, before again calling another user a name. We might, given the totality of the situation, choose to send a reminder this time. In that reminder, we might add some text mentioning that the user was on a very good streak for a long time, let the user know that we saw and appreciated the cooperation, and encourage the user not to fall back into a bad habit because in that case moderation will need to be escalated quickly. Or we might just send the reminder. The point here is that given the long period of posting within the rules, we might de-escalate moderation. We take the big picture into account, not just the specific rule that was broken.

Before you ask me if the specific numbers apply in all cases, I will say no - these are just examples for the purpose of illustrating my point. The examples are ficitious and simplified for the sake of discussion, but typical.

The same violation is treated differently in the three cases. Disciplinary actions are based on the rule involved, the nature of the violation, and any history of prior violations. For repeated rules violations, discipline may increase from reminders to short time-outs to longer time-outs to a permanent ban. In other words, a one-day suspension for a rules violation can become a multi-day suspension the next time, and a user's moderation history is part of the picture.

Are there exceptions? Sure. Some rules are more serious than others. If a newbie starts off right off the bat with multiple insults, or if the first post contains hate speech, we are more likely to put the account in a permanent suspension immediately. Why? So we can get the user's attention and have a conversation about the rules.

We feel that this policy is the way in which we can be fair to each user, given their particular circumstances.

Remember that you can't see whether or not another user has gotten a warning or reminder. And to be frank, it's none of your business. Each user is responsible for his or her own posts, regardless of what anyone else posts. If users trust us to be as fair as humanly possible, worry less about how others are being moderated, and pay more attention to their own posts, discussions like this won't be necessary.

After all the explanations we've provided, either you trust that we moderate as fairly as possible or you don't. I think this trust is necessary to have a good experience here. If I don't trust how a site is run or trust the powers that be to treat me fairly, I go elsewhere.

Okay, I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this, based on my years of experience here I think the rules are not applied equally and never have been. I also think the nature of the rules is so are so stringent and rigid that this site has painted itself into a corner in trying to enforce them, particularly around PRSI, which is now creeping its way into other forums because of the current political environment. I believe it's also why you're seeing so many posts in feedback (aside from mine) questioning it. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one but your input here is appreciated.

As for the "if you don't like it you don't have to be here" that I see from staff in these posts, I would like to touch on that. Many of us have been here for years and the rules weren't always this way. A while back you guys implemented this policy in PRSI, effectively implementing a much stricter set of rules and then applying them retroactively, which led to the banning or suspension of several accounts for things they had done months before. Seriously, what a terrible policy that left a lot of people scratching their heads. The reason I stay is because I've built up relationships, enjoy the camaraderie and many of us were here before things got out of hand with moderation. I know a lot of members have either been banned or have left as a result.

Staff also likes to question why we're talking in a political forum on a tech site, I shouldn't have to remind them that they have a political forum on a tech site. This forum is regularly derided as a necessary evil by staff, we constantly hear how much they dislike the forum itself and the struggle to moderate it. I would ask why you even have it?

 

[Weaselboy]

A while back you guys implemented this policy in PRSI, effectively implementing a much stricter set of rules and then applying them retroactively

That policy was not applied retroactively. Members were only PRSI blocked for three strikes after the date that policy was published.

 

[Stephen.R]

And still no clarification of how “coronavirus is a hoax” isn’t considered “controversial” but “the situation will be different based on how leaders/government respond” is.

Plenty of time to respond to tell people where they live and how the site works. Good job team.

 

[Apple_Robert]

And still no clarification of how “coronavirus is a hoax” isn’t considered “controversial” but “the situation will be different based on how leaders/government respond” is.

Plenty of time to respond to tell people where they live and how the site works. Good job team.

It appears you are very unhappy with how things are run here. No matter what is said, you continue to argue and insult the staff. Maybe a change to a different site would suit you better?

 

[I7guy]

Okay, I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this, based on my years of experience here I think the rules are not applied equally and never have been. I also think the nature of the rules is so are so stringent and rigid that this site has painted itself into a corner in trying to enforce them, particularly around PRSI, which is now creeping its way into other forums because of the current political environment. I believe it's also why you're seeing so many posts in feedback (aside from mine) questioning it. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one but your input here is appreciated.

As for the "if you don't like it you don't have to be here" that I see from staff in these posts, I would like to touch on that. Many of us have been here for years and the rules weren't always this way. A while back you guys implemented this policy in PRSI, effectively implementing a much stricter set of rules and then applying them retroactively, which led to the banning or suspension of several accounts for things they had done months before. Seriously, what a terrible policy that left a lot of people scratching their heads. The reason I stay is because I've built up relationships, enjoy the camaraderie and many of us were here before things got out of hand with moderation. I know a lot of members have either been banned or have left as a result.

The mods and staff seemingly have spent a lot of time crafting individual responses to the inquiries in this thread:

• Biased moderation
• Uneven moderation
• Too strict moderation
• Seeming comments directed at one moderator
• Guesses about the workings behind the scenes
• As well as some useful suggestions regarding pings from the moderators

What do you expect out of all of this? What changes do you want the administrators to make? Why is it seemingly so difficult to post within the guidelines?

Staff also likes to question why we're talking in a political forum on a tech site, I shouldn't have to remind them that they have a political forum on a tech site. This forum is regularly derided as a necessary evil by staff, we constantly hear how much they dislike the forum itself and the struggle to moderate it. I would ask why you even have it?

PRSI is not going away according to the powers to be. Staff has been candid and upfront discussing their feelings regarding that forum and that has been used as an argument "against them/the site" to ask why even have it.

It appears you are very unhappy with how things are run here. No matter what is said, you continue to argue and insult the staff. Maybe a change to a different site would suit you better?

Not to mention take (subtle) pot shots at the posters in this thread.

 

[ericgtr12]

It appears you are very unhappy with how things are run here. No matter what is said, you continue to argue and insult the staff. Maybe a change to a different site would suit you better?

Yes, accept it or GTFO has been a common theme. Thank you for the input, and for completely ignoring my feedback on that specific subject completely.

That being said, anytime I bring up these concerns in this forum, the staff has been open to discussion around it and I do appreciate that, have to give credit where credit is due.

The mods and staff seemingly have spent a lot of time crafting individual responses to the inquiries in this thread:

• Biased moderation
• Uneven moderation
• Too strict moderation
• Seeming comments directed at one moderator
• Guesses about the workings behind the scenes
• As well as some useful suggestions regarding pings from the moderators

What do you expect out of all of this? What changes do you want the administrators to make? Why is it seemingly so difficult to post within the guidelines?

PRSI is not going away according to the powers to be. Staff has been candid and upfront discussing their feelings regarding that forum and that has been used as an argument "against them/the site" to ask why even have it.

Not to mention take (subtle) pot shots at the posters in this thread.

Every bullet point here is valid, thank you for summing it up. I would simply ask they make a better effort for consistent moderation, if you don't apply the same rules consistently it implies bias, whether or not that is the intention.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Yes, accept it or GTFO has been a common theme. Thank you for the input, and for completely ignoring my feedback on that specific subject completely.

That being said, anytime I bring up these concerns in this forum, the staff has been open to discussion around it and I do appreciate that, have to give credit where credit is due.


Every bullet point here is valid, thank you for summing it up. I would simply ask they make a better effort for consistent moderation, if you don't apply the same rules consistently it implies bias, whether or not that is the intention.

I was speaking to Stephen. That is why I quoted him. He has had his questions answered time and time again and continues on with snarky and belligerent replies.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, accept it or GTFO has been a common theme. Thank you for the input, and for completely ignoring my feedback on that specific subject completely.

That being said, anytime I bring up these concerns in this forum, the staff has been open to discussion around it and I do appreciate that, have to give credit where credit is due.

This is a general response. At some point in time, where these discussions are going around in circles one has to decide if this is a place for them to want to participate in the way the site rules allow that participation.

The constructive side are the responses from the staff, which are open to all and can be viewed in these threads and illustrate the nuances in moderation on this site.

Every bullet point here is valid, thank you for summing it up. I would simply ask they make a better effort for consistent moderation, if you don't apply the same rules consistently it implies bias, whether or not that is the intention.

(You referred to PRSI of the past somewhat akin to a club...it was even more of a dumpster fire back then.)

If after all of this, your concerns have not been allayed, and you have specific questions, I guess you can use the contact us to pursue additional information.

If after all of this, you are still of the opinion there is bias and uneven moderation being applied, it doesn't seem that there is anything the staff could say more about that topic and even the site owner made an uncharacteristic pointed comment in another thread.

 

[Doctor Q]

how are the following posts, not considered "controversial":

So stupid. Just let people live their lives. We’re all going to get this stupid virus so quit prolonging it and just get it over with.

Or, how about the pearler (which I won't quote, due to length) which claims that (a) coronavirus just does not exist, and is all a hoax, and (b) that infectious viruses do not exist.

The first post was reported and considered by the moderators to be acceptable since it was about the pandemic, which was the subject of the news story, and the post was judged not likely to derail the thread. It's hard to imagine having a thread about Apple Store closures without people's opinions about the necessity of those closures, including a "hoax" claim if that is somebody's honest opinion. It's understandable if you would choose to be stricter, disallowing many more posts than the moderators do (and perhaps most posts in that particular thread). The moderators always consider the tradeoff in letting people express opinions versus letting people ruin threads for other people.

I didn't spot the second post so I don't know if it was reported.