Quality of Moderation on MacRumors Forums

[Doctor Q]

It's against forum rules to make posts with negative comments about other forum members. This applies even when the target is a former forum member. As a result, we've removed comments and posts above that aren't in keeping with that rule. Since it may not have been clear to everyone that the rule applied to former forum members, we have not issued any reminders or warnings about these posts, but simply removed the posts from this thread. Some posts didn't contain negative personal comments themselves but were removed because they quoted and/or replied to posts that were removed.

We'd rather not interfere with a discussion thread about moderation, because it can provide valuable feedback, but we needed to be consistent about removing negative personal comments, and the thread had also gotten quite off-topic. We closed this thread temporarily, but it is now open again.

 

[laptech]

Whilst there is a lot of good sections within the forum, in my opinion the News discussion section is there to bait members into breaking forum rules because a huge amount of what gets reported on has political or social undertones but when those aspects are explored as part of the thread debate, members get suspended or banned for breaking the forum rules. Threads on Tim Cook getting pay rises and bonuses has an undertone of social issues linked to it as in people are suffering and here we are reading an article about how good Tim Cook is and how he deserves the money he gets. Then there are articles about Apple and China. All of them have political undertones because yes it's China but anyone that dares to explore that aspect as part of the debate get's an immediate suspension for breaking the rules and it happens time and time again. Yes it's a private owned and run forum but there are aspects to it that are designed to catch members out to ban them. If a member is being disruptive, you cannot call them out for it because your not allowed to post negatively about a member but yet when you report the member for being disruptive/being a troll, the report comes back as 'no action required' and again that happens time and time again and many members over the past years have reported on that.

The rules are not there to help us members, they are there to help prevent increasing work for the moderation team and that has been proven time and time again by arn replying to comments saying 'we do not have the time to do x because it creates to much work for the moderation team'. The rules are very very restrict in what members can say and that has been proven time and time again by many members being suspended because they get caught out by the political, social and being negative rules by threads and members that bait them.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Whilst there is a lot of good sections within the forum, in my opinion the News discussion section is there to bait members into breaking forum rules because a huge amount of what gets reported on has political or social undertones but when those aspects are explored as part of the thread debate, members get suspended or banned for breaking the forum rules. Threads on Tim Cook getting pay rises and bonuses has an undertone of social issues linked to it as in people are suffering and here we are reading an article about how good Tim Cook is and how he deserves the money he gets. Then there are articles about Apple and China. All of them have political undertones because yes it's China but anyone that dares to explore that aspect as part of the debate get's an immediate suspension for breaking the rules and it happens time and time again. Yes it's a private owned and run forum but there are aspects to it that are designed to catch members out to ban them. If a member is being disruptive, you cannot call them out for it because your not allowed to post negatively about a member but yet when you report the member for being disruptive/being a troll, the report comes back as 'no action required' and again that happens time and time again and many members over the past years have reported on that.

The rules are not there to help us members, they are there to help prevent increasing work for the moderation team and that has been proven time and time again by arn replying to comments saying 'we do not have the time to do x because it creates to much work for the moderation team'. The rules are very very restrict in what members can say and that has been proven time and time again by many members being suspended because they get caught out by the political, social and being negative rules by threads and members that bait them.

I think you raise a very good point here. It also extends to the Community section where 'sports' are discussed too. Quite often some of the leading headlines and pressing issues involved in certain sports are political by nature and ingrained within the sport. For example discussing an F1 drivers salary negotiations or where they choose to live can lead posters to fall foul of the forum rules on political discussion, even by the lightest of mentions within the thread.

By contrast throughout the iPhone and Apple product threads we talk about retail costs and compare regional prices and taxes, which are also political by nature, but this is excused because it is very difficult to avoid in general conversation.

I do think 'deep' political conversations should definitely be reserved for the appropiate polical news sections, but light political points need to be considered within context in other discussions when they are relevent to the specific topic, current news in that topic etc. Moderators need to be less black and white in this regard. Some of us have no desire to join in with political discussion and have opted out of the 'political news' sections of this forum, but have been given 'reminders' for the lightest of political references in recent times.

 

[icanhazmac]

in my opinion the News discussion section is there to bait members into breaking forum rules

but there are aspects to it that are designed to catch members out to ban them

Could someone also "bait" you into robbing a bank?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous the above sounds? A, for profit, site and forum that "baits" members in to suspensions or bans? I have seen many discussions about TCs compensation as well as many articles discussing China. Of course we cannot speak in specifics but for a member to receive moderation inside a political news thread, they must have gone deep in the paint.

Offering a counterpoint... I recently reported a post because the author is constantly but carefully injecting "social" issues into an otherwise harmless and fun thread. The response back was "no action required", when I challenged that I received back a message that basically said "call that member's assertion out in thread and ask for citation", funny thing was I had already done that but they had deleted the posts as "bickering". You cannot "win" them all.

So you see, we all have different interpretations of the rules and how they should be applied. In the end we all need to decide, as individuals, if we enjoy our time here or if we find it too restrictive or not to our own tastes.

 

[AbSoluTc]

While moderation here seems to be fair, there are some instances where it’s left to the mod to “interpret” and that mod may have a different definition vs another. Off topic for instance. Some posts are removed or warned for that but it’s relevant to the discussion in the thread. Now if we started talking about motorcycles in an iMessage bug thread, yeah I get it.

 

[laptech]

Offering a counterpoint... I recently reported a post because the author is constantly but carefully injecting "social" issues into an otherwise harmless and fun thread. The response back was "no action required", when I challenged that I received back a message that basically said "call that member's assertion out in thread and ask for citation", funny thing was I had already done that but they had deleted the posts as "bickering". You cannot "win" them all.

That part you posted shows exactly the problem people in here have been complaining about, the inconsistently with moderation and the mods interpreting the rules differently. Your post shows that one mod interpreted your posts as 'bickering' and removed them but when challenged another mod said to basically do what you had already done. That mod would not have removed your posts because that mod would have seen your posts as 'calling out' the OP but the other mod interpreted it differently. That should have never been allowed to happen but the mod's get away with it because you never took the matter further and complained, you just accepted it as 'you can't win them all'. That is totally unacceptable and the mod's that dealt with you should be held accountable.

 

[I7guy]

I think you raise a very good point here. It also extends to the Community section where 'sports' are discussed too. Quite often some of the leading headlines and pressing issues involved in certain sports are political by nature and ingrained within the sport. For example discussing an F1 drivers salary negotiations or where they choose to live can lead posters to fall foul of the forum rules on political discussion, even by the lightest of mentions within the thread.

By contrast throughout the iPhone and Apple product threads we talk about retail costs and compare regional prices and taxes, which are also political by nature, but this is excused because it is very difficult to avoid in general conversation.

If I understand the rules and the way they are interpreted and applied it’s not that posts aren’t politics but political and controversial.

I do think 'deep' political conversations should definitely be reserved for the appropiate polical news sections, but light political points need to be considered within context in other discussions when they are relevent to the specific topic, current news in that topic etc. Moderators need to be less black and white in this regard. Some of us have no desire to join in with political discussion and have opted out of the 'political news' sections of this forum, but have been given 'reminders' for the lightest of political references in recent times.

 

[icanhazmac]

That part you posted shows exactly the problem people in here have been complaining about, the inconsistently with moderation and the mods interpreting the rules differently. Your post shows that one mod interpreted your posts as 'bickering' and removed them but when challenged another mod said to basically do what you had already done. That mod would not have removed your posts because that mod would have seen your posts as 'calling out' the OP but the other mod interpreted it differently. That should have never been allowed to happen but the mod's get away with it because you never took the matter further and complained, you just accepted it as 'you can't win them all'. That is totally unacceptable and the mod's that dealt with you should be held accountable.

Fair points. I did challenge this particular decision and IIRC challenges go before either a group or all the mods.

At the end of the day I guess I just don't care enough about a very small number of moderation decisions affecting single interactions with member(s) I really don't care for all that much. I am here for the Apple stuff and sometimes get "baited" as you say into a debate, usually over PRSI stuff or moderation.

It is simply never going to be perfect. I am generally very happy here, if that ever changes I will act accordingly. Some folks here just continually spit or piss in the wind and I just don't see the point in wetting myself.

 

[I7guy]

That part you posted shows exactly the problem people in here have been complaining about, the inconsistently with moderation and the mods interpreting the rules differently. Your post shows that one mod interpreted your posts as 'bickering' and removed them but when challenged another mod said to basically do what you had already done. That mod would not have removed your posts because that mod would have seen your posts as 'calling out' the OP but the other mod interpreted it differently. That should have never been allowed to happen but the mod's get away with it because you never took the matter further and complained, you just accepted it as 'you can't win them all'. That is totally unacceptable and the mod's that dealt with you should be held accountable.

“Held accountable”? That’s some hyperbole. There is a system in place and it’s using the ”contact us” button if you believe some action needs further review or clarification.

Overall, imo, the moderation here is very good. People have to take personal responsibility for what they post. If a post is reported after the reporter gets the disposition of the matter move on with your life.

Posts such as the above calling for holding mods accountable are not helpful in the least. Moderation in these forums will not please everybody and the rules for debate are very clear.

 

[laptech]

....

At the end of the day I guess I just don't care enough about a very small number of moderation decisions affecting single interactions with member(s) I really don't care for all that much. I am here for the Apple stuff and sometimes get "baited" as you say into a debate, usually over PRSI stuff or moderation.

.....

And there is exactly why this forum has the problem it does with the way this forum is moderated because member's do not care enough to enact change. Two mod's treated you and your posts differently but you do not care enough to take matters further. This then allows the two mod's to carry on behaving they way they have even though what both of them did was wrong. If members cared more, moderation would be improved but if far to many members think like you then it would explain why things have become the way they have.

How can moderation be improved if the mod's are not shown the error of their ways?

 

[icanhazmac]

Two mod's treated you and your posts differently

I beg to differ. I believe 1 mod deleted the posts. I then challenged that and I believe the challenge was reviewed by the team were I was given advice on what to do, funny thing was I had already done it and been on the receiving end of moderation. Is it perfect, no, nothing is.

If members cared more, moderation would be improved but if far to many members think like you then it would explain why things have become the way they have.

I debate in this thread more than the vast majority of the sites 1 million plus members so I wouldn't say that I don't care about MR or the moderation here. I would like it known that in this particular situation, choosing to debate further with the member in question was no longer worth my time. There is a difference in how much I care about moderation in general and this one isolated incident.

How can moderation be improved if the mod's are not shown the error of their ways?

Funny thing is, who defines "error of their ways"?

Me? Nope
You? Nope
MR ownership/management? Yup

I have said this before, their site, their rules. That being said if they foster an anti-community set of rules then membership will fall. The only vote you have is with your presence here and your $$ if you choose to contribute, by all means, make suggestions, use your voice here in S&FF but if at the end of the day you don't like it here use your vote wisely.

 

[laptech]

I beg to differ. I believe 1 mod deleted the posts. I then challenged that and I believe the challenge was reviewed by the team were I was given advice on what to do, funny thing was I had already done it and been on the receiving end of moderation. Is it perfect, no, nothing is.

......

But the advice you was given differed to that of the actions of the mod who deleted your posts. It clearly shows there is a difference of opinion/view within the moderating team when there shouldn't be because both should be on the same page. The fact the advice given differed from that of the actions of the mod who deleted your posts which shows nothing has improved. This is why there needs to be discussions on forum moderation and mod's held accountable instead of having things hidden behind closed doors which the 'contact form' is because it allows the discussion to stay hidden and thus cannot be scrutinized by others to see if what was said and action done was appropriate. Mod decisions are not always right and it is wrong that it is only they that get to see what is going on because as soon as someone tries to talk about it openly, they get cautioned/suspended for breaking rules on discussing moderation actions.

Yes you are perfectly right that it is their site thus their rules but what it goes to show is just how much of sheep we all are, being controlled the way the site owner wants us to be controlled, with limited free speech.

 

[KaliYoni]

My personal view is that MR’s moderation policies and decisions are not that significant to me. There are many reasons, but the main ones are:

• My real life takes precedence over my online life.
• MR has little to no influence on global, national, or local decision makers.
• I come to MR to read about and to discuss Apple and selected fun topics I’m personally interested in. When I want to engage in PRSI debates or read PRSI material posted by people I don’t know, there are many, many other online venues with better suited Terms of Service and moderation practices.

If I ever felt the discussion environment here had become irreversibly offensive, hateful, or combative, I would simply stop visiting MR.

 

[I7guy]

But the advice you was given differed to that of the actions of the mod who deleted your posts. It clearly shows there is a difference of opinion/view within the moderating team when there shouldn't be because both should be on the same page.

People generally have differing opinions. Speeding for example may get one a ticket from one cop and a warning from another. Doesn't mean they aren't on the same page, but means they are exercising disgression.

The fact the advice given differed from that of the actions of the mod who deleted your posts which shows nothing has improved. This is why there needs to be discussions on forum moderation and mod's held accountable instead of having things hidden behind closed doors which the 'contact form' is because it allows the discussion to stay hidden and thus cannot be scrutinized by others to see if what was said and action done was appropriate.

It is appropriate to have discussions behind closed doors. It doesn't serve any purpose to air dirty laundry. If you want an open discussion then you are free to request the moderators to discuss a particular scenario openly, but that is not by default. You are not privvy to know about the moderation actions of others unless they release it.

Mod decisions are not always right and it is wrong that it is only they that get to see what is going on because as soon as someone tries to talk about it openly, they get cautioned/suspended for breaking rules on discussing moderation actions.

This faq provides some additional information. https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201260827-How-are-moderation-errors-handled- The TLR are members are always usually wrong.

Yes you are perfectly right that it is their site thus their rules but what it goes to show is just how much of sheep we all are, being controlled the way the site owner wants us to be controlled, with limited free speech.

This entire post is the antithesis of constructive criticism. Negative generalizations, insults to a universe of members who probably won't agree with you and objectively wrong information.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Whilst there is a lot of good sections within the forum, in my opinion the News discussion section is there to bait members into breaking forum rules because a huge amount of what gets reported on has political or social undertones but when those aspects are explored as part of the thread debate, members get suspended or banned for breaking the forum rules. Threads on Tim Cook getting pay rises and bonuses has an undertone of social issues linked to it as in people are suffering and here we are reading an article about how good Tim Cook is and how he deserves the money he gets. Then there are articles about Apple and China. All of them have political undertones because yes it's China but anyone that dares to explore that aspect as part of the debate get's an immediate suspension for breaking the rules and it happens time and time again. Yes it's a private owned and run forum but there are aspects to it that are designed to catch members out to ban them. If a member is being disruptive, you cannot call them out for it because your not allowed to post negatively about a member but yet when you report the member for being disruptive/being a troll, the report comes back as 'no action required' and again that happens time and time again and many members over the past years have reported on that.

The rules are not there to help us members, they are there to help prevent increasing work for the moderation team and that has been proven time and time again by arn replying to comments saying 'we do not have the time to do x because it creates to much work for the moderation team'. The rules are very very restrict in what members can say and that has been proven time and time again by many members being suspended because they get caught out by the political, social and being negative rules by threads and members that bait them.

Rules are in place to make sure Arn's business runs as smooth as possible while providing a positive atmosphere for all viewing and interacting with the forums.

Posting articles does not constitute baiting of members. Those who violate the rules are admonished by the mods. Sometimes you disagree with the mod decision(s). In the end, it doesn't matter whether you, I, or anyone else agrees. What truly matters, is Arn's business being run the way he wants it to be run.

Your posts in this thread, along with past posts on similar subjects shows (to me at least) that you seem to have a big problem with this business. For someone who doesn't even contribute to the business you complain about time and time again, why do you keep coming to the business?

 

[avz]

For someone who doesn't even contribute to the business you complain about time and time again, why do you keep coming to the business?

You mean like some people who live far away/don't pay taxes still think that they have a right to have an opinion on how things should be somewhere else?

All lives matter is great but anything less than that will be seen as an attempt to "divide and conquer".

 

[laptech]

Rules are in place to make sure Arn's business runs as smooth as possible while providing a positive atmosphere for all viewing and interacting with the forums.

Posting articles does not constitute baiting of members. Those who violate the rules are admonished by the mods. Sometimes you disagree with the mod decision(s). In the end, it doesn't matter whether you, I, or anyone else agrees. What truly matters, is Arn's business being run the way he wants it to be run.

Your posts in this thread, along with past posts on similar subjects shows (to me at least) that you seem to have a big problem with this business. For someone who doesn't even contribute to the business you complain about time and time again, why do you keep coming to the business?

If people took your attitude nothing would get improved because that is how many things get improved, people find fault with something and they complain about it. Is that how you go through life, burring your head in the sand when you think there are problems with something? well bully for you. I and others within this forum feel there are problems with how the forum is moderated and thus we voice our thoughts/views/opinions. If you do not like what we write then you are more than welcome to leave and go join a forum where no body complains about nothing.

You are no different to the Apple fans who use 'if you don't like it, go buy an android' when users complain about their iphone. In your case, when people voice negativity about the forum you go 'well if you don't like it, leave'. Is that your way of trying to prevent people from having their say, to moan at us, complain at us, bully us, harass us in getting us to leave the site because you do not like seeing negative posts about the forum and the way it's run. Well here is a thing, why don't you leave and leave us to complain so things can be improved.

As for contributing to the business, please enlighten me as to what you consider 'contributing to the business is', because as far as I am aware, this business is a forum and a forum relies on threads/posts being made and whilst I do not make threads, I do make posts and therefore 'contribute to the business'. If this is not what you consider 'contributing to the business' then I think you are accusing thousands upon thousands of other members of not doing so either.

 

[icanhazmac]

If people took your attitude nothing would get improved because that is how many things get improved, people find fault with something and they complain about it. Is that how you go through life, burring your head in the sand when you think there are problems with something? well bully for you. I and others within this forum feel there are problems with how the forum is moderated and thus we voice our thoughts/views/opinions. If you do not like what we write then you are more than welcome to leave and go join a forum where no body complains about nothing.

There is a huge difference between the following:

A) Being generally happy with the site/forum/moderation and not sweating the little things. Little things being, for example, incidents of moderation that don't go as expected or as desired.

and

B) Having ones head in the sand and not caring about anything. Every member who has challenged you here in S&FF could hardly be accused of "burying their heads in the sand", they area taking some of their time to offer a competing viewpoint.

You have descended into insults and just general bickering with other members and the site. I have repeatedly said to you and others "please voice your opinions" as that is what S&FF is for, but at what point are you just spitting in the fan? The third, fifth, tenth time you say the exact same thing?

You seem to forget that for every person who doesn't like the way things are here there are others that do. Don't expect that you can complain in a vacuum. You may also experience other members who explicitly don't want the changes you do.

As you aren't really interested in discourse, only complaining and now insulting I guess I'll just grab some popcorn.

 

[novagamer]

The moderators are definitely biased in my opinion. Stuff I wouldn't even consider being political is being censored as political.

Do you make any effort at macrumors to ensure there is viewpoint diversity amongst the moderators?

Also, I should say that any posts related to Apple's green initiatives are basically baiting for responses to be moderated. If you happen to have a more nuanced view on such initiatives, it seems you are a target for moderation.

This happened to me too, just to throw my 2 cents in. And I've been here a LONG tine off and on, coming up on 20 years soon. There is overzealous moderation lately and I've had the exact "what I posted was absolutely not political and was based in provable facts" post get evaporated with a stern warning that came out of left-field.

As a result I'll spend a bit of time at looking at new release stuff and posting a bit but overall I don't give the site much time at all. It's one thing to have trolling or spam but totally another to basically forbid discussion that is relevant to a thread but maybe isn't precisely laser-focused on the topic itself. Sometimes the broader picture is what makes forum posts great and you can learn from each other.

It is a forum after all, literally a place for discussion. I think the mod team needs a big shake-up, it seems like there's strange power-tripping going on that wasn't the case at all when Arn was still running things and actively invovled.

 

[Doctor Q]

... I've had the exact "what I posted was absolutely not political and was based in provable facts" post get evaporated with a stern warning that came out of left-field. ...

Do you give us permission to explain, in this thread, why your post was moderated?

 

[novagamer]

Do you give us permission to explain, in this thread, why your post was moderated?

I'm not overly upset but I didn't even have the chance to reply to the moderator about the source material that supported what I posted. My post was replying to a thread about X and my post was pointing out specifically where the funding came from, which was exposed in the Elon Musk trial that he abruptly ended when he decided to go ahead with the Twitter buyout. I speculated on the intent of the funding he received and where it came from which is hard evidence. The speculation was my interpretation of intent, not the fact that the funding was sourced where it was which is indisputable but the moderator who removed my comment may not have been aware of that and I importantly didn't have a chance to tell them.

I'm not really looking to get into a public fight and I understand that moderating a forum is difficult but it seems like multiple people have had a similar experiences and that's why I posted the comment above. If you feel like laying everything out for the full forum will help go right ahead, but I don't know that it will be productive and I think it's hypocritical that I would have an opportunity to reply in public about a private action but I didn't have an opportunity to reply to the private PM where the action was taken. I know there was some email avenue but it's just a forum post and there's only so much effort I want to put in.

I don't at all support trial by public opinion and IMO it is part of what is ruining the internet as a whole. If you post a news story about a controversial subject and people respond with commentary about that I don't think that is off-topic at all, and certainly not rule violating. But those are your rules to make of course.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from here. It's less about the single specific moderation instance and more about the pattern. This thread itself has devolved though, prior to my post, which I didn't see when I quoted and replied. Maybe it isn't worthwhile given the state of the commentary in here now.

 

[laptech]

I'm not overly upset but I didn't even have the chance to reply to the moderator about the source material that supported what I posted. My post was replying to a thread about X and my post was pointing out specifically where the funding came from, which was exposed in the Elon Musk trial that he abruptly ended when he decided to go ahead with the Twitter buyout. I speculated on the intent of the funding he received and where it came from which is hard evidence. The speculation was my interpretation of intent, not the fact that the funding was sourced where it was which is indisputable but the moderator who removed my comment may not have been aware of that and I importantly didn't have a chance to tell them.

I'm not really looking to get into a public fight and I understand that moderating a forum is difficult but it seems like multiple people have had a similar experiences and that's why I posted the comment above. If you feel like laying everything out for the full forum will help go right ahead, but I don't know that it will be productive and I think it's hypocritical that I would have an opportunity to reply in public about a private action but I didn't have an opportunity to reply to the private PM where the action was taken. I know there was some email avenue but it's just a forum post and there's only so much effort I want to put in.

I don't at all support trial by public opinion and IMO it is part of what is ruining the internet as a whole. If you post a news story about a controversial subject and people respond with commentary about that I don't think that is off-topic at all, and certainly not rule violating. But those are your rules to make of course.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from here. It's less about the single specific moderation instance and more about the pattern. This thread itself has devolved though, prior to my post, which I didn't see when I quoted and replied. Maybe it isn't worthwhile given the state of the commentary in here now.

It would not make a blind bit a difference if you did give them permission to post your post in here and explain why it was moderated because the key point at issue here is that you wanted there to be some PM conversation between you and the mod to be able to explain yourself before moderation was taken BUT arn will just use the excuse (as has been used in numerous thread in this section) that mods do not have time to get into PM exchanges and that if a member is not happy with a moderation decision they are to use the 'contact us' method. Going that route defeats the issue at hand because a member wants the chance to explain themselves BEFORE their post is moderated, not afterwards.

There are have been a number threads of late about moderation and in each one members have put forward idea's/thoughts/suggestions and each time arn pops in with the same post, just worded differently each time and that is the mod's cannot do what is being asked of them because they do not have the time to do it.

So even if you was to try and argue your case, the site owner and admins will just say 'mod's do not have the time to do such and such' and end the debate.

 

[novagamer]

It would not make a blind bit a difference if you did give them permission to post your post in here and explain why it was moderated because the key point at issue here is that you wanted there to be some PM conversation between you and the mod to be able to explain yourself before moderation was taken BUT arn will just use the excuse (as has been used in numerous thread in this section) that mods do not have time to get into PM exchanges and that if a member is not happy with a moderation decision they are to use the 'contact us' method. Going that route defeats the issue at hand because a member wants the chance to explain themselves BEFORE their post is moderated, not afterwards.

There are have been a number threads of late about moderation and in each one members have put forward idea's/thoughts/suggestions and each time arn pops in with the same post, just worded differently each time and that is the mod's cannot do what is being asked of them because they do not have the time to do it.

So even if you was to try and argue your case, the site owner and admins will just say 'mod's do not have the time to do such and such' and end the debate.

Just to be explicitly clear, and please don't take this as an attack on what you're saying:

1. I don't think it's feasible for moderators to have discourse with users before action is taken. That isn't reasonable
2. I DO think it is reasonable for users that have posts removed to be able to reply in private, particularly when strong language that reads as "you will be banned if you continue behaving this way" is used, especially when it comes to long-standing members who have productively contributed to the forum for years.

I didn't even necessarily want my post reinstated, although that would have been nice, I just wanted to explain myself because the moderator message was so sternly worded, and my post was on topic but from an angle that I think a lot of people hadn't considered. They have the ability to censor whatever they want, but I did disagree with that specific instance. Not allowing good-standing members to reply in-line in private is a mistake, and the rules now do seem more strict to the point where I will hold off commenting on certain things as a result.

Maybe I didn't keep up with the changing site administration, maybe MacRumors got so popular they have to rely on these methods of just axing anything even slightly off-topic from the main page comments, but I do truly think it does the site a disservice. There's a reason we are here in a forum instead of on other social media, there's a community aspect that isn't there with the more mass-market stuff. Trolls, bots, obvious flame-bait type stuff does need to be dealt with harshly, but there is a balance and I feel that balance is off.

I was here when Arn was regularly posting, have interacted with him, had a bunch of personal communication with Rob (RIP) at BareFeats, etc. and was very active and invested in the Mac community. Trolls were always a problem but the strict "stay on script" forum moderation was not happening back then and that prompted my post as I said.

It seems like you're pretty unhappy with how things are being run and from what you're saying there has been internal discourse about this for a while that goes nowhere. Are you considering leaving the forum completely as a result? More action like that may have an impact vs. continuing to come here and complain, not that I'm saying that's what you're doing – I'm not digging through post history or anything but at some point it is their site to run how they see fit, whether we agree with the methods or not. I do think it needs some adjustment though, but it's up to them to implement. I hope they take some of the more specific feedback into account. Good forums are hard to find now vs. 20 years ago, and it would be a shame if this one drives away its best members.

 

[Doctor Q]

If you feel like laying everything out for the full forum will help go right ahead...

Yours is one of many cases where we could provide an explanation of moderation, given permission to do so. Thanks for allowing it. Remember that you can use the Contact form to ask why your post was moderated, and get a full explanation in private. That message goes to the administrators, which gets you not only an answer but a review of the moderation. Exchanging PMs with one moderator would bypass that review, so using the Contact form is for your benefit.

In your case, the thread in question was about Twitter blocking third-party apps. Your post mentioned Saudi money for financing, state entities having a vested interest in controlling communication, the Arab Spring, and a claim that many leftists congregated on Twitter.

You said above that what you posted was "absolutely not political," but the moderators thought otherwise. This post was deemed to be about politics and/or social issues, the type of post likely to take a news thread off topic. Allowing it could have broadened the scope of the discussion, but that broadening is a double-edged sword that can turn a news thread into a political discussion that others users may not want to wade through. That's the reason for the rule, and why we have a separate forum for Political News, where the editors specifically allow those discussions when it's so inherent to the topic.

You mention that your post was based in "provable facts." That's fine, and if it wasn't delving into politics it would have been fine whether or not it had provable facts. The moderators do not confirm or dispute claims of fact, and rely only on the forum rules. It would be untenable, and unhelpful to the forum community, if the moderators were to be tasked with deciding what claims in a post are true or false.

Finally, you said that you received a "stern warning" that "came out of left field." I think you'll find that the moderation message that you received was polite, saying "This is a reminder from the MacRumors moderator team to avoid making posts that are about political, religious, or social issues, outside the "Political News" forum, and that are likely to steer discussions to those types of topics." The message went on to explain the reason for the rule, tell you where to get more information, invite you to use the Contact form if you had questions about the notice, and it ended with "Your cooperation is appreciated."

You may have felt that it came "out of left field" because (a) you didn't consider your post to be political and (b) you're an excellent forum member so getting a reminder was novel.

 

[laptech]

....

It seems like you're pretty unhappy with how things are being run and from what you're saying there has been internal discourse about this for a while that goes nowhere. Are you considering leaving the forum completely as a result? More action like that may have an impact vs. continuing to come here and complain, not that I'm saying that's what you're doing – I'm not digging through post history or anything but at some point it is their site to run how they see fit, whether we agree with the methods or not. I do think it needs some adjustment though, but it's up to them to implement. I hope they take some of the more specific feedback into account. Good forums are hard to find now vs. 20 years ago, and it would be a shame if this one drives away its best members.

Unhappy how things are?? nope. I see issues and/or problems and am therefore speaking up about them. In my opinion many people do not speak out because they are too afraid of the ban hammer coming down on them so they just put up with how things are going.

I keep hearing the excuse 'It's their site, their rules' but does that allow them to treat members unfairly and/or unjustly? in my opinion no it does not. We never allow that to take place in the outside world so why do we allow it in here?

This forum as a lot of very good sections but there is room for improvement. People always have things to say and as long as they do so in a polite and constructive manner then in my opinion they should have a right to say what needs to be said but that is not always the case in this forum and it is wrong. Members should have a right to speak out and not worry if mod's are going to find an excuse to tag it as 'political' or 'social issue' or 'trolling' just to shut them up.