I look at wccftech for various insights into technology. I'm sometimes shocked at the writers and often shocked at the comments.
My buddy and I were using "GTFO" in the late 1980s and I'm surprised that it's still out there.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disappointing behavior by a MacRumors reporter
- Thread starter japanime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My buddy and I were using "GTFO" in the late 1980s and I'm surprised that it's still out there.
Apple Saving Account interest rate increased from 4.25% to 4.35%!
Moderator Note: Please continue the discussion in the news thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-card-savings-account-receives-another-rate-increase.2415503/
forums.macrumors.com
Why Apple is low quality and not for professionals or people who work
Moderator Note: I don't think we are covering any new ground here. Thread closed.
forums.macrumors.com
Mods do post as regular forum members. Usually when a mod posts something intended to be an "official" statement from a mod the post will be marked with Moderator Note: or something similar. Above are a couple examples.
The exception to that would be in a thread in this forum section where the context makes it obvious the mod is posting in an official capacity. For example, if a new forum member is a developer and they posted here asking under what circumstances they can mention their app, a mod would answer and link to the relevant rule.
Apple Saving Account interest rate increased from 4.25% to 4.35%!
Moderator Note: Please continue the discussion in the news thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-card-savings-account-receives-another-rate-increase.2415503/
Why Apple is low quality and not for professionals or people who work
Moderator Note: I don't think we are covering any new ground here. Thread closed.
Mods do post as regular forum members. Usually when a mod posts something intended to be an "official" statement from a mod the post will be marked with Moderator Note: or something similar. Above are a couple examples.
The exception to that would be in a thread in this forum section where the context makes it obvious the mod is posting in an official capacity. For example, if a new forum member is a developer and they posted here asking under what circumstances they can mention their app, a mod would answer and link to the relevant rule.
So the practices that the poster wished to be developed... already exist.
The post in question has an avatar/status panel saying "Senior reporter - staff member" and a sig saying "Senior reporter for MacRumors". They are literally posting as a MacRumors reporter, not in a personal capacity.
I'm all for employees/representatives/office holders being able to have their own lives and opinions, but they should take off their official hat, first.
That said, the "offence" here is pretty petty - and it is ultimately up to Macrumors whether they feel it is inappropriate for the role, although it does seem to be a breach of the posting guidelines.
Directed at the thread in general:
As for responding to conspiracy theorists - my half penny's worth: rule one should be don't feed the trolls - they feed on attention, good or bad. The belief that "the powers that be" are suppressing and deriding the "truth" is central to the conspiracy theory narrative and mocking them (especially from what looks like a position of authority) just validates that - as well as perpetuating the post by quoting it. You're not going to change their mind, you're just enticing them to misquote Gandhi at you. If there is a justification for replying it is to set the record straight for the benefit of other readers who may be tempted by the conspiracy, but that means writing a proper rebuttal - not just a "LOL". Either rebut it properly, report it (if you think it is harmful misinformation) or ignore it.
NB: just for clarity, bearing in mind ths subject matter, I am not affiliated with MacRumors.
For mods yes.
OP here is referring to a post by a reporter/editor. Ordinarily, like in this case, I think it is obvious from the context the post was from the reporter in an official capacity. I can't think of any examples where a reporter would need to highlight that the post is an official post like the "Moderator Note" examples for mod posts I gave earlier.
I don't believe so. What are you confused about? In that sentence I was referring to the post from a reporter OP mentioned.
I'm not sure that it was actually obvious from the context that the reporter was posting in an official capacity, and I wanted to check to make sure that was your intended message.
Staff with MR titles do not have alternative ids to post from that do not contain those titles. Every post they make comes with the MR affiliation in the left hand side.
That makes no difference. If you are introduced as an employee/affiliate of an organisation then you are speaking in an official capacity and take on that responsibility, whether you like it or not. In the case in question (see the first post in this thread) the poster has added a signature repeating their job title - which clearly isn't compulsory given the lack of sigs in the posts by other staff members above.
(To reiterate, though - let's keep this minor "transgression" in perspective! )
Are people really having this much of an issue about a "LOL, what?" response? I read through that and still don't understand the issue?
I disagree that it makes no difference. Staff should be free to participate in the forums and follow the same rules as everyone else.
Am I speaking in an official capacity for MacRumors? I am not.
Remember that those who currently work for MacRumors are people, just as you all are.
There is a rule against having two accounts, so people working for MacRumors will always have their title with them.
It's like people waiting in line at a store don't think that cashiers should have to go to the restroom, take breaks, eat lunch or anything else.
Does it say "Moderator emeritus" at the side of your post? It does.
Anybody who actually knows what "emeritus" means will probably see a distinction between that and "Staff Member", plus you haven't added a signature repeating the title - so its not quite the same as the post under discussion - but its still a mark of status which other people don't have.
If you accept the status, you accept the responsibility that goes with it - which may not be huge but certainly includes setting an example by being fairly scrupulous in following the rules that you enforced as a moderator (not that you appear to have done anything wrong personally - we're talking 'in principle' here).
If MR policy forced you to take the "moderator emeritus" status, or won't let staff have an anonymised personal account then that's an issue between you and your MR colleagues. That doesn't change the fact that visitors to the site will see you identifying yourself as "Moderator emeritus" or "Staff Member". I guess there could be a transparency problem with MR staff posing anonymously, too - but hey, sometimes this thing called "responsibility" means that you can't get to do exactly what we want, where we want, when we want.
Personally, (as a "people too" person) I anticipate not doing at least 5 things I want to do and doing 3 things I don't want to do this week because of responsibilities and obligations.
No, its more like saying that cashiers grabbing their shopping at the end of their shift shouldn't take 20 items through the "5 items or less" till while still wearing their "My name is Cliche – Welcome to Kwik-e-Mart" badge. Hardly a big ask and I suspect that the actual rules imposed on them - on pain of firing - are a lot stricter.
I think that "follow the same rules as everybody else is supposed to follow" is all that anybody here is asking.
Well are you saying that post violated some MR guidelines? Or that it’s MR legal but you don’t like its tone?
Your analysis is off base with respect to @bousozoku. "Moderator emeritus" translates into "Retired Moderator With Distinction." No one could/should confuse that with being a current staff member with authority. If you, or anybody body else, is confused -- it is on you. Otherwise, I would agree that current moderators should exercise caution.
Which is essentially the same as what I said:
...but posting under an emeritus title is still stating an affiliation to an organisation, whichever way you cut it, and carries some level of responsibility to act as a representative that organisation.
Just to re-iterate, this is all hypothetical and rhetorical in the case of @bousozoku who hasn't AFAIK broken any rules and has - for this thread at least - explicitly said that they are not speaking for MR.
Yes (we're talking about the post originally quoted by the thread starter) - as shown earlier in this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...by-a-macrumors-reporter.2419165/post-32931033 - the rules explicitly mention "two word posts" and "LOL".
Does anyone know if the reporters post has been reported for breaking the forum rules? because the mods will only act on a post if it is reported because the post clearly breaks rule 2 of 'Things not to do'.
Some people have never ran a forum or been a moderator, and it shows. Ya'll do realize that this is a private forum, right?
And what has that got to do with it? Are you implying that because it is a private forum that those that run and moderate the forum do not need to be held to the same standard of obeying the rules like the rest of us have to?
This is not a black and white conversation. The post by Joe R in response to ops post probably would have stood the test of time had any member made it. lol posts and +1 posts just add noise.
And if a third word had been added would the message have been any clearer?