I don't think political jokes are permitted, unless it was made in the political news forum. Maybe that's what you're meant when you said threads tagged as such. I can't be sure
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.
Quality of Moderation on MacRumors Forums
- Thread starter SchilPhiller
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, that is what I meant. 👍
I tend to forget it is a forum and focus on the disclaimer at the bottom as a "tag":
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
It’s kind of a slippery slope. The issue with that is when/where to draw the line. Is saying “a b c” ok? What about “j k l”? We know that “x y z” will bring the hammer down. My kids used to pick on each other, and when called out on it, their response was “I was kidding, it was a joke”. That didn’t fly very often then, and I wonder how well it would fly here.
You cannot draw the line without bringing one's own political views in. This is where the bias is.
I am not saying jokes are not allowed. I am saying that if some *political* jokes are not allowed, then *no* political jokes should be allowed.
The only complaint I have is that I have had post deleted or warning served for probably the dumbest reasons where they didn’t consider the context of the thread. And then, when reaching out for a friendly discussion with a moderator, they don’t even respond.
My thought is that if you’re going to have the power to hand out a warning, then show the power to back it up when challenged.
My thought is that if you’re going to have the power to hand out a warning, then show the power to back it up when challenged.
Last edited:
I do not approve of political jokes either. I have seen too many get elected.
The policy is to use the contact us link for any moderation questions and so the mods are not ignoring you, but following policy. With that said, I think a response back would sometimes clear up a lot of questions, and also improve the communications.
For sure. Especially when the warning comes in a private message, a response would be nice.
I am also of the opinion that I believe in the counter to what you would have said had you said the opposite of what you did.
I 100% agree with that. I respect the job that moderators are doing, and I know how hard it can be. But they must be able to justify their decisions and to be responsive. This is how accountability works
Agreed.
No, not at all.
Why "must" they be able to - have to, be obliged to - justify their actions?
There is no "must" to this, not at all, as this is a privately owned site.
Rather than "must" (for there is no "must" to this), one might more credibly argue that "it would be quite nice if this occurred".
Yes, but privately owned companies do not need to be accountable to anyone other than their owner(s).
(And yes, granted, I will concede that it took me quite some time to digest this lesson).
The thing is, this is a privately owned site, - the owners make the rules, rules we all have signed up to when we joined the site - and, therefore, as a privately owned site, the site owners are under no obligation whatsoever to be accountable to the membership.
This is not a requirement on the part of the people who own (and run) the site.
Moreover, this is not a democracy - where individuals who have been elected to office are expected to be accountable to their respective electorates - still less a company where the members are shareholders, where they can hold management to account at the company's AGM.
Last edited:
I think this is where we get into the conversation of "What the mods have to do" and "What is the right thing to do".
Well okay, legally they do not owe us anything, you're right. But it's not like there is only one possible interpretation of a rule. I agree with all the rules on this forum, I disagree with the way they are interpreted and enforced. There is a mutual understanding between MR and its users that as long as you comply with the rules, you can post whatever you want on the forum.
Now, I appreciate the fact that moderation is rarely a black or white situation, and most of the time is a grey area where there could be conflicting interpretations of how a specific rule should apply. But this is another reason why a justification from the mods is important. If MR wants to keep its users happy, it has to offer more than the bare minimum.
What is consdiered "Right" in the context of evolving and developing patterns of behaviour on online platforms is something that is - by definition - extraordinarily subjective, and will, inevitably, give rise to dramatically different opinions.
I would say that if you are going to give someone on this forum a warning, and they replied to that warning asking for clarification, that offering a response would be the right thing to do.
I can only speak to my experience but every time I have questioned a moderation decision I have received a reply. Not discounting the experiences of others, just offering a data point.
But, such communications - warnings, reprimands, a time-out - tend to be private, they are sent by DM to an individual member.
Why seek to have it discussed publicly as a warning is - by definition - communicated between you and the staff and takes place in private, for it is sent by DM.
And here, I write - and find myself taking a similar stance to that of @icanhazmac - and I also write as someone who has received warnings, and who has disagreed (at times vehemently) with decisions taken by the staff, especially in the days when this site had a forum where political stuff (and socio-economic matters, among others) were discussed, at times, passionately.
In the absence of regulation, (and I'm European, hence my views on such matters may differ quite dramatically from those held by some in the US), this is a privately owned site - one which, when we signed up upon joining the site, we agreed to abide by the rules - and that means that the owner(s) are accountable only to themselves, not to shareholders, not to an electorate, and, above all, not to members of the site.
Last edited:
Likewise.
Now, for what it is worth, I may not have much liked the reply - and, indeed, there have been occasions when I most certainly did not - but, yes, any time I questioned a moderation decision, I have received a reply, sometimes, quite a detailed and thoughtful and closely-argued reply.
That's so strange. I think I've gotten like 5 warnings and responded to all of them and never once received a reply.
Mods are told to refer moderated members to the contact us (support ticket) process if they question moderation.
The reason for this is so there is transparency among the mods and admins about what is occurring with moderation. If, for example, there is a mod who has gone off the reservation and is way out of sync with policy, and that mod is handling complaints privately with members over PM, the admins won't notice there might be a problem.
I ordinarily just refer any PM complaints to the contact us process. Occasionally, if I get a polite PM from a member just trying to understand where they went wrong, I'll try to explain, then I document what I did. I can think of some examples where a member PM'd me an explanation pointing out something I missed, and I reversed the moderation.
The mods are held accountable as part of that contact us review process the admins conduct. I realize this might not be the kind of public accountability you have in mind though.