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

[ericgtr12]

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.

But that video itself is a proven hoax and derided by all credible outlets, and as has been mentioned, the posting or sharing of it has been forbidden on every major social networking or video site out there. Yet MR refuses to address it on this level. I don't think anyone questions that it shouldn't be discussed but it's the actual video in the post that seems to cross the line.

In many posts that are moderated, you'll see certain segments cut out of the post while leaving the rest, in this case it's hard to understand why there is an exception being made. I just wanted to make that clarification for this specific video because it seems like staff thinks we're asking for all discussion to be taken off the table about it and that's not the case, at least speaking for myself.

 

[Doctor Q]

There was no video in the "So stupid." post. Are you talking about another post?

 

[I7guy]

But that video itself is a proven hoax and derided by all credible outlets, and as has been mentioned, the posting or sharing of it has been forbidden on every major social networking or video site out there. Yet MR refuses to address it on this level. I don't think anyone questions that it shouldn't be discussed but it's the actual video in the post that seems to cross the line.

In many posts that are moderated, you'll see certain segments cut out of the post while leaving the rest, in this case it's hard to understand why there is an exception being made. I just wanted to make that clarification for this specific video because it seems like staff thinks we're asking for all discussion to be taken off the table about it and that's not the case, at least speaking for myself.

Wasn't there this said?

Are Hoaxes Allowed at MR?

I think you need to block yourself from the politics forum. It’s clearly causing you a lot of distress. I had to unblock the politics forum for myself to read through the thread. The discussion is mostly about how insane the video is. Some defending aspects of it - which are already being...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[ericgtr12]

There was no video in the "So stupid." post. Are you talking about another post?

May be some confusion here, sent a message.

 

[Plutonius]

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.

I can't see why just going into the political forum is an issue ?

People can enter one thread without entering the others.

Is seeing the threads titles causing people anguish ?

 

[Plutonius]

As far as me doing most of the moderation, in your case I think it may be a time zone issue.

or it could be you are putting in more work than the other volunteers .

 

[Weaselboy]

or it could be you are putting in more work than the other volunteers .

I am retired and have more free time, so that may be part of it also.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I am a bit confused on this as well. Ever since hiding the PRSI forum was perfected recently, I've not had a problem with PRSI at all. Other than my own inability to prevent myself from getting involved in political news stories... but I am an imperfect being working on becoming better - and I do want to see news stories, political or not.

The forum does a great job at hiding PRSI.

I believe asking the mods to ban more speech in PRSI is counter intuitive. I position myself more on the freedom of speech side of the fence. Once you start shutting down certain forms of speech, over time, this can be abused.

Now, I left Facebook, Twitter, and all that crap years ago because of uncensored platforms that these services gave those who intentionally tried to troll, mis-inform, and mislead. Outrage was their bread and butter. My own relatives were posting stuff that was obviously incorrect but very worked up over. So I left.

My position is: PRSI is effectively hidden now. People who love to spend their lives arguing, debating, and increasing their heart rates over disagreements can do so without bothering me.

Due to my "freedom of speech" fence position, I believe the mods here are doing a great job. I am of the opinion that they are very heavy handed already (I see a lot of suspensions) so more heavy handed measures aren't something I support. We aren't in kindergarten anymore.

 

[I7guy]

...
Due to my "freedom of speech" fence position, I believe the mods here are doing a great job. I am of the opinion that they are very heavy handed already (I see a lot of suspensions) so more heavy handed measures aren't something I support. We aren't in kindergarten anymore.

"Freedom of speech" does not translate to me anyway, into "say anything you want in anyway you want to say it". There doesn't seem to be any debate that us forum posters can debate/discuss and even argue topical (and past) hot-button topics.

It's the "bar room brawl" type of atmosphere that these rules are trying to mitigate.

As far as the rules, the administrators have said multiple times there is some discretion based on multiple factors, which we as forums posters are not privvy to. This discretion (based on the factors of the forum posters moderation history) of the administrators seems fuel some of the debate about uneven application of the rules. The moderators and administrators have also said repeatedly, even though the moderation faq might be strong in the wording about moderation is fair, that the admins are open to discussion about any particular incident.

We should just accept this as a trade-off this site makes with regards to "freedom of speech" and do our best to post within the guidelines.

 

[Stephen.R]

including a "hoax" claim if that is somebody's honest opinion

I mean.. Jesus ****ing christ. If claiming that a deadly pandemic is a hoax doesn't fall under this rule, then what ****ing does?

1. Hoaxes. Purposely misleading other members to their detriment. Giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful. Sensationalism.

This is exactly what im talking about, this whole thread. "Follow the rules, and you'll be ok" doesn't work, when the moderators contradict the rules even when "explaining".

 

[Stephen.R]

The moderators always consider the tradeoff in letting people express opinions versus letting people ruin threads for other people.

And yet, a post that says, literally:

This is very true. If Australia or Canada or Thailand had a head of government who constantly disputed the warnings from their own experts, refused make any personal changes to highlight the dangers, or simply pretended the pandemic doesn't exist, I imagine those countries would be in very different situations now too. But that was kind of my point wasn't it.

is somehow controversial? Different response = different result. That's not controversy, that's just plain ****ing logic - and to claim that that one god damn post, on PAGE THREE, "took the discussion off topic" when the whole ****ing discussion was about Covid/"Lockdowns" is beyond absurd.

 

[Stephen.R]

As far as the rules, the administrators have said multiple times there is some discretion based on multiple factors, which we as forums posters are not privvy to. This discretion (based on the factors of the forum posters moderation history) of the administrators seems fuel some of the debate about uneven application of the rules.

I (and I’ve not seen others say either) don’t question why “punishment” actions might be different. I have questioned why that detail was omitted, but I don’t question the logic of it.

But that isn’t what we’re talking about when we say the rules are applied unevenly. If a post is “not acceptable” then my previous good or bad behaviour should have zero impact on whether it’s disallowed (and thus removed). that’s literally playing favourites.

 

[I7guy]

I (and I’ve not seen others say either) don’t question why “punishment” actions might be different. I have questioned why that detail was omitted, but I don’t question the logic of it.

But that isn’t what we’re talking about when we say the rules are applied unevenly. If a post is “not acceptable” then my previous good or bad behaviour should have zero impact on whether it’s disallowed (and thus removed). that’s literally playing favourites.

Not sure I understand fully. There's a lot nuance in determining a post is "not acceptable". There is a range in there, of simply being off-topic to insults, trolling, political "controverisal" topics to hate-speech. Then is there is the moderation action taken. There is a lot of nuance with that aspect as well. It could result in a simple reminder or something more severe based on the severity of the violation coupled with a posters past moderation history. With the latter there appears to be some guidelines not discussed previously, such as the length of time between major infractions (sic). I didn't see anywhere where it was written that implied that a "not acceptable" post is removed based on previous good or bad behavior.

Additionally, about hoaxes. People who claim the pandemic is a hoax are ill-informed and that (bad) opinion can be debated with many citations, even that ill-informed video can be debated with some credentialed citations.

To me an example of hoax would be someone posting: "President ends all taxes. Paying taxes is voluntary as of August 1, 2020." Of course it's a hoax (or bad April fools' joke) and no one (so I would hope) would really believe it, but that's on the lighter end of the scale and can go way darker.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Apple Stores in Victoria, Australia to Reclose Following Return of Lockdown

Four Apple stores in Victoria, Australia are set to reclose for up to six weeks from July 9, following a spike in coronavirus infections in the state. As reported by 9to5Mac, Apple Highpoint in Melbourne was the first store to reclose on July 2 as the deteriorating health situation prompted a...

forums.macrumors.com

This is the thread in question?

While I agree strongly with @Stephen.R 's posts in this thread - I don't see anything in here that warrants action by the mods. Yes, several members were blatantly disregarding facts and spouting opinions that showed extreme ignorance - bordering on trolling imo. I gave the thumbs down to some because I strongly disagreed.

I don't think those voices should be silenced. I have relatives that feel similar to this way, and people I know that I respect, sadly.

 

[ericgtr12]

I (and I’ve not seen others say either) don’t question why “punishment” actions might be different. I have questioned why that detail was omitted, but I don’t question the logic of it.

But that isn’t what we’re talking about when we say the rules are applied unevenly. If a post is “not acceptable” then my previous good or bad behaviour should have zero impact on whether it’s disallowed (and thus removed). that’s literally playing favourites.

They’ve essentially admitted to this and we’re being told to live with it or leave. If these rules were applied evenly, no matter how stringent, it wouldn’t be such an issue. When you are penalized for the exact same thing someone else isn’t it’s disingenuous.

 

[C DM]

Apple Stores in Victoria, Australia to Reclose Following Return of Lockdown

Four Apple stores in Victoria, Australia are set to reclose for up to six weeks from July 9, following a spike in coronavirus infections in the state. As reported by 9to5Mac, Apple Highpoint in Melbourne was the first store to reclose on July 2 as the deteriorating health situation prompted a...

forums.macrumors.com

This is the thread in question?

While I agree strongly with @Stephen.R 's posts in this thread - I don't see anything in here that warrants action by the mods. Yes, several members were blatantly disregarding facts and spouting opinions that showed extreme ignorance - bordering on trolling imo. I gave the thumbs down to some because I strongly disagreed.

I don't think those voices should be silenced. I have relatives that feel similar to this way, and people I know that I respect, sadly.

Sounds like that kind of thing is crossing more into the type of discussion that has been happening at https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...llowing-anti-mask-threads-here-at-mr.2246701/

 

[I7guy]

They’ve essentially admitted to this and we’re being told to live with it or leave....

Can you point to where this was posted?

 

[ericgtr12]

Can you point to where this was posted?

Are you on the staff here? If not, I would appreciate you not addressing me as if you were. If they have any specific questions related to this topic I'll be glad to answer them.

 

[S.B.G]

Are you on the staff here? If not, I would appreciate you not addressing me as if you were. If they have any specific questions related to this topic I'll be glad to answer them.

This is a publicly available forum and he has the freedom to reply and ask questions if he likes. You have the equal freedom to not respond if you don’t care to.

Telling him to not ask questions is just plain rude.

 

[ericgtr12]

This is a publicly available forum and he has the freedom to reply and ask questions if he likes. You have the equal freedom to not respond if you don’t care to.

Telling him to not ask questions is just plain rude.

You obviously haven't looked at the questions, nor how he's asked them. I've been ignoring and he still persists over and over.

 

[I7guy]

You obviously haven't looked at the questions, nor how he's asked them. I've been ignoring and he still persists over and over.

It’s alleged the staff is “literally playing favorites”. I frankly do not see that in the exchanges nor can I derive interpretation.

 

[ericgtr12]

It’s alleged the staff is “literally playing favorites”. I frankly do not see that in the exchanges nor can I derive interpretation.

Fair enough, agree to disagree on that?

 

[AustinIllini]

I mean.. Jesus ****ing christ. If claiming that a deadly pandemic is a hoax doesn't fall under this rule, then what ****ing does?




This is exactly what im talking about, this whole thread. "Follow the rules, and you'll be ok" doesn't work, when the moderators contradict the rules even when "explaining".

This happens a lot on forums and social networks. Don't be so hard on the moderators.

You have a point and I'm inclined to agree with you, but don't push it.

 

[Stephen.R]

This happens a lot on forums and social networks. Don't be so hard on the moderators.

I'm not sure what "this" you're referring to specifically.

My only goal out of this entire thing is to get some kind of clarification about how the rules are actually applied, because the wording does not match the implementation, based on the evidence at hand. The constant responses insisting "nothing to see here" don't help.

 

[Doctor Q]

May be some confusion here, sent a message.

Thanks for de-confusing me by explaining that the comment above was about another thread, not the ones we've been discussing here.