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

[Doctor Q]

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?

I couldn't spot that post. It's not in the thread mentioned by BigMcGuire.

 

[annk]

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.

You have misunderstood. A user's moderation history has zero influence on whether or not a comment is allowed. A violation is a violation.

However, a user's moderation history does have an impact on the type and severity ofthe moderation reaction that a user receives for a violation.

 

[Stephen.R]

I couldn't spot that post. It's not in the thread mentioned by BigMcGuire.

I don’t remember which thread s/he mentioned.

That post was in the thread about Apple stores closing in Victoria because of the second closure of nonessential services due to covid19.

Does that post strike you as particularly controversial? Taking the conversation off topic?

 

[Doctor Q]

I don’t remember which thread s/he mentioned.

That post was in the thread about Apple stores closing in Victoria because of the second closure of nonessential services due to covid19.

Does that post strike you as particularly controversial? Taking the conversation off topic?

Thanks for identifying the post in question, which was about what happens when a head of government dismisses the danger of the virus. It's a valid concern, as the news about Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro shows. But in that thread, the discussion was about the nature of the virus that caused the store closures and the health situation in Australia and other countries, and the moderators kept it on-topic by removing or editing posts where there were personal insults, group slurs, or comments about the actions of politicians. That included the paragraph you mention. Their goal was to keep the thread on the topic of the stores and the disease, rather than having it turn into a discussion of the politicians who influence the pandemic response. A number of posts were edited or removed for that reason. It takes extra time for the moderators to edit a post, leaving most of the content while removing a sentence or two, rather than simply removing the post, but they do this to minimize their interventions. Would the thread have veered off topic if they had left the posts about politicians? We don't know; it's an educated guess. And keep in mind that there are plenty of PRSI threads where the actions (or non-actions) of government leaders are being discussed, so forum members are free to voice their opinions about politicians there.

 

[ericgtr12]

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

I actually meant the confusion was on my part, I sent you a PM as well as I thought it was a rule not to discuss specific thread moderation in here.

 

[Doctor Q]

I thought it was a rule not to discuss specific thread moderation in here.

That's correct, except where the user involved has given us permission.

 

[Stephen.R]

which was about what happens when a head of government dismisses the danger of the virus

that thread, the discussion was about the nature of the virus that caused the store closures and the health situation in Australia and other countries,

Ok so let me get this straight.

The removed post, was a reply to a 7-reply-chain "discussion" about the situation in various countries, as a direct response to my very first response calling out the "**** it, YOLO everyone"-esque reply.

Every single one of those 7 replies back and forth mentions the different situation in various countries. And that is apparently all "On topic", but just mentioning that the different situation is without a doubt a result of different government response, is "Off topic"?

Even me mentioning the stupid actions of some (not government itself, but government contracted workers) that are believed to have contributed to that resurgence in Victoria is apparently fine?

The multiple posts that just flat out say Coronavirus does not exist, and that it's all a "scam" or a "hoax" are apparently fine?

Another post specifically says "the whole world is watching the US response...." and that's fine?

There were multiple posts discussing some ohio guy who got his 15 minutes of fame after dying from covid19. And that's fine?


I'm having a hard time seeing how exactly you can categorise "different response = different result" as off topic and "look at how the results in A, B and C are different" as on topic, given how much latitude is given for other posts in that thread.


I'm also still waiting for an "official" response as to how multiple claims that the virus is not real, is a scam, a hoax, etc are deemed "acceptable". Let's not even get into the ones where people repeatedly claim that it's the same as a cold.

 

[Plutonius]

The removed post, was a reply to a 7-reply-chain "discussion"

I have had post removed because they were part of a chain of responses and not because my post was in violation.

Moderators should not be expected to edit a chain of responses in order to clean up the discussion.

Removing post from the chain can make the chain confusing so I support deleting the entire chain even though I may lose some post.

Let's not even get into the ones where people repeatedly claim that it's the same as a cold.

Both Covid-19 and the common cold are Coronaviruses so I'm not sure why this should be moderated ?

 

[I7guy]

...
I'm also still waiting for an "official" response as to how multiple claims that the virus is not real, is a scam, a hoax, etc are deemed "acceptable". Let's not even get into the ones where people repeatedly claim that it's the same as a cold.

I'll add my "unofficial" response.

What rule do you think the above would run afoul of and as such would require moderation?

Is someone claiming something is a hoax conversation that should be disallowed. Should a claim the earth is flat be disallowed? Is someone claiming something is a hoax and that can be debated different than posting a hoax, a harmless example is:

"US Government To End All Tax Collection as of September 1"

 

[Stephen.R]

in order to clean up the discussion

My question is why that one post in the discussion was somehow 'off topic'. The entire discussion was about the same thing.

What rule do you think the above would run afoul of and as such would require moderation?

There is literally a rule about hoaxes. I didn't say I agree with it, necessarily. If you'd actually read my earlier posts in this thread, I quoted the exact rule, and asked how claiming that a global pandemic doesn't exist doesn't come under that rule.


In case you haven't been paying attention, or.. I dunno, read the title of the thread, my point here is to try to get some kind of reliable information about how the rules as written are actually used to apply moderation. Because just reading the rules is clearly not enough - the "official" responses in this thread to clarify the rules, that themselves then need further clarifications applied to them, are evidence enough that what's written nowhere near what's enforced.

 

[jerwin]

Both Covid-19 and the common cold are Coronaviruses so I'm not sure why this should be moderated ?

That's akin to suggesting that Vaccinia (cowpox) and Variola (smallpox) are equivalent.

 

[I7guy]

...
There is literally a rule about hoaxes. I didn't say I agree with it, necessarily. If you'd actually read my earlier posts in this thread, I quoted the exact rule, and asked how claiming that a global pandemic doesn't exist doesn't come under that rule.


In case you haven't been paying attention, or.. I dunno, read the title of the thread, my point here is to try to get some kind of reliable information about how the rules as written are actually used to apply moderation. Because just reading the rules is clearly not enough - the "official" responses in this thread to clarify the rules, that themselves then need further clarifications applied to them, are evidence enough that what's written nowhere near what's enforced.

You literally ignored what questions I asked.

Is posting a hoax, such as: "US Government To End All Tax Collection as of September 1" the same as some opinion claiming something is a hoax? Should any discussion where anything is challenged be disallowed? Because that is where this is headed. Even arn said this (which is as "official" as can be)

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 debated elsewhere. no one promoting it as truth. No one is being “tricked” by this video.

The video was removed from twitter and Facebook because literally tens of millions of people were being exposed to this video which was hosted on their platforms.

We can block the link itself, but it seems mostly pedantic, since it’s message is being discussed.

arn

As far as your second point, in case you haven't been paying attention, Doctor Q and annk and weaselboy have been providing answers to your questions. From the examples provided, it seems there are a number of factors, some of which are discretionary, that could lead one to have a question such as the thread title. However, if you are looking for a one-size fits all pat answer you are not going to get one as policing the site to keep it running as the owner wants involves: experience, common sense, discretion, even-handedness, teamwork, willingness to listen etc. Meaning that goals and targets almost certainly change over time.

 

[Stephen.R]

You literally ignored what questions I asked.

And you literally failed to read the rule I referenced, which simply starts with a one word sentence "Hoaxes" and then says:

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

One of the posts I'm talking about literally claimed that there is no such thing as COVID19, and that the person could walk into a room of 100 people who are told they are infected, and that person would be fine.

As far as your second point, in case you haven't been paying attention, Doctor Q and annk and weaselboy have been providing answers to your questions.

And if you had bothered to read anything I write, you'd see that each time they provide some more information, that leads to a further request for some clarification.

I dont know what your deal is, but you keep wanting to speak as if you know how things work.

 

[Doctor Q]

Stephen.R's "Ok so let me get this straight." post asks many questions to confirm that certain posts were deemed fine or not fine. The answer is "yes" to all of them. The moderators chose to draw the line between posts about the situation in various countries and posts about the officials who managed (or did not manage) their country's responses. As in any thread, they have to decide how off-topic a post can be before it's considered a likely problem. Posts about the politicians in charge might not have caused trouble, or could have led to arguments about issues even further off-topic, like upcoming elections and how one politician or another might institute changes. Which we know, from other threads, typically turns into heated arguments.

The bottom line is that the moderators try to judge what will keep a thread on topic and try to be as consistent as possible about what's allowed and what isn't. When a thread that's not directly about politics is NOT in the Political News or PRSI forum, they want to keep it close to the thread topic, or not too far off, for the benefit of overall thread readers. Anybody can second-guess those decisions and where they draw the line, as Stephen.R has done here. Those who want to help us meet the goals of the forum rules can limit their PRSI-ish posts to threads in the political forums, as a favor to their fellow forum members.

* * *

The hoax rule was instituted because of posts such as "Try this cool command in the Terminal app: ...", which tried to trick people into erasing their own disk files. We know that there are people who believe that the coronavirus is a hoax. If they voice that opinion, that's not "purposely misleading other members to their detriment, giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful, or sensationalism" as defined by the rule. There may also be people who want to put others in danger by making the same claim (causing people not to take suitable precautions). The posts in these two cases might be identical. The moderators would need evidence of bad intent to apply to hoax rule in this case. Another example: Saying "the Earth is flat" wouldn't cause harm even if the poster didn't believe it, so it doesn't fall under the hoax rule. Saying "Drink a gallon of (some disinfectant) and you'll feel great!" would fall under the hoax rule because there's much less (or no) chance that it's the honest opinion of the poster.

As always, please report posts that you think violate the forum rules, follow them yourself, and feel free to ask questions when the rules aren't clear.

 

[jerwin]

That explains so much about macrumors. There are many people not in full possession of the facts, and yet their ignorance is truly genuine.

 

[BigMcGuire]

That explains so much about macrumors. There are many people not in full possession of the facts, and yet their ignorance is truly genuine.

I see this everywhere. This really came out for me with the current pandemic - people come to conclusions without all the facts and then treat their conclusions as fact getting REALLY offended when you question or suggest anything different while willfully ignoring any evidence presented to them. I initially chalked it up to getting older but it has come out this year more than ever before.

Scary. In a day and age when we have such amazing computers, an internet that collects all our knowledge, we have misinformation and willful ignorance at such a scale as this.

I still think stifling speech is not the answer for a lot of this stuff... being well informed means considering the alternative and opinions you don't agree with. There is a middle ground, right? I left Facebook and Twitter because those platforms seemed to glorify misinformation, probably because they make millions on it. Constant outrage fuels $$$.

Agreed but this isn't just Macrumors.

 

[Doctor Q]

I left Facebook and Twitter because those platforms seemed to glorify misinformation, probably because they make millions on it. Constant outrage fuels $$$.

One way MacRumors could deal with controversial issues would be to delegate the problem to another group, for example, allowing anything that Twitter allows and disallowing anything that Twitter disallows. But that's a moving target, and we think the forums are better served when we make our own decisions, in the context of our forum members, even though people will never agree on exactly how lenient or strict to be.

We do delegate in one case. Our Marketplace rules prohibit dealing in items that are on eBay's list of "prohibited and restricted items." We don't think we could do a better job choosing and maintaining such a list.

 

[icanhazmac]

One way MacRumors could deal with controversial issues would be to delegate the problem to another group, for example, allowing anything that Twitter allows and disallowing anything that Twitter disallows. But that's a moving target, and we think the forums are better served when we make our own decisions, in the context of our forum members, even though people will never agree on exactly how lenient or strict to be.

Please don't let Twitter manage anything MR does!

I believe the the MR team does a great job and IMHO these threads get drawn out by a very small but extremely vocal group of cancel culture types who just want to clench their little fists and stomp their little feet and scream 'why, why, why' until the world bends to their will.

Stay the course... we appreciate you!

 

[BigMcGuire]

One way MacRumors could deal with controversial issues would be to delegate the problem to another group, for example, allowing anything that Twitter allows and disallowing anything that Twitter disallows. But that's a moving target, and we think the forums are better served when we make our own decisions, in the context of our forum members, even though people will never agree on exactly how lenient or strict to be.

We do delegate in one case. Our Marketplace rules prohibit dealing in items that are on eBay's list of "prohibited and restricted items." We don't think we could do a better job choosing and maintaining such a list.

And that's why I'm still here and not on Facebook or Twitter. Yep. Agreed, the mods do a much better job.

 

[jerwin]

even though people will never agree on exactly how lenient or strict to be.

Much depends on whether and how a particular rule achieves its purpose, and what is gained or lost in pursuing that purpose to the exclusion of others.

 

[Stephen.R]

Seriously? Saying that you're going to stop reading an annoying person's posts (and use the ignore feature to achieve that) is considered trolling?

Can the rest of us get a copy of the MacRumors dictionary where every word has a different meaning than it does elsewhere?

 

[ericgtr12]

One way MacRumors could deal with controversial issues would be to delegate the problem to another group, for example, allowing anything that Twitter allows and disallowing anything that Twitter disallows. But that's a moving target, and we think the forums are better served when we make our own decisions, in the context of our forum members, even though people will never agree on exactly how lenient or strict to be.

We do delegate in one case. Our Marketplace rules prohibit dealing in items that are on eBay's list of "prohibited and restricted items." We don't think we could do a better job choosing and maintaining such a list.

Huge differences though. With the exception of allowing hoax posts here, which Twitter and FB will not, they are infinitely less stringent than MR. People can curse, they can argue and have heated debates, and they don't have moderators watching over the place with like nuns with a ruler half-cocked and ready to strike the back of your hand. They address the same issues MR does but only when really necessary, not because someone with a differing view reported you for a technicality.

Yes, it's your forum and your rules. That means watching over every word you say and how you say it, even when not being insulting if it can be construed that way you will likely get an infraction. And for those in this thread defending these actions, I would ask who amongst you has not had infraction. Glad to see you're on board now but let's face it, we've all been slapped here.

I think most would welcome the same freedom that you're allowed on FB or Twitter.

 

[I7guy]

Huge differences though. With the exception of allowing hoax posts here, which Twitter and FB will not, they are infinitely less stringent than MR. People can curse, they can argue and have heated debates, and they don't have moderators watching over the place with like nuns with a ruler half-cocked and ready to strike the back of your hand. They address the same issues MR does but only when really necessary, not because someone with a differing view reported you for a technicality.

A technicality such as insults or maybe bypassing the profanity filter or trolling? Or group slur or hate speech. What do you consider a technicality?

Yes, it's your forum and your rules. That means watching over every word you say and how you say it, even when not being insulting if it can be construed that way you will likely get an infraction. And for those in this thread defending these actions, I would ask who amongst you has not had infraction. Glad to see you're on board now but let's face it, we've all been slapped here.

I disagree. Why is it so difficult to discuss a point in a civil manner, without hate speech, group slurs, insults or trolling? My MR record is not “clean” so to speak, but I’ve learned (The hard way) to post in (more or less) a civil way. And in fact appreciate that while discussions can be heated/animated a certain amount of decorum is enforced.

I think most would welcome the same freedom that you're allowed on FB or Twitter.

Why, so PRSI can be turned into a bar room brawl atmosphere?

 

[I7guy]

Seriously? Saying that you're going to stop reading an annoying person's posts (and use the ignore feature to achieve that) is considered trolling?

Can the rest of us get a copy of the MacRumors dictionary where every word has a different meaning than it does elsewhere?

If you decide to put another user on your ignore list, don't post about it in a thread. Your post will always be off-topic to the thread subject, and may well be considered trolling. It's reasonable to assume that such a post will irritate the user involved, and may well irritate other thread participants. If you post about putting a user on your ignore list, your post will be moderated.

The ignore function

There have been questions recently about the ignore function. This is an attempt to explain how the function works and how it relates to the forum rules. A healthy difference of opinion is necessary for a good discussion. That said, we know that temperatures can run high when certain subjects...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[icanhazmac]

My MR record is not “clean” so to speak, but I’ve learned (The hard way) to post in (more or less) a civil way. And in fact appreciate that while discussions can be heated/animated a certain amount of decorum is enforced.

I couldn't agree more! I have also been whacked by the mod stick and even received a short vacation once but in these cases I was able to (after a calming period) accept the situation and move on, learning all the while that there are more effective ways to communicate.

What I won't do it attempt to blame others, including the mods, for my actions.

If you don't like the rules or cannot abide by them then you really should be asking yourself why you are here. Instead of subjecting the entire forum to wall o' text temper tantrums about rules you want changed just find greener pastures.

By all means, make suggestions they are even asked for, but when the response comes back either accept it or move on.