Quality of Moderation on MacRumors Forums

[novagamer]

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.

I absolutely agree it was about social issues. But remember the context was social media which inherently involves social issues. You can't, I think, have one without the other.

I humbly suggest you read the couple follow-on posts in this thread because I think I made some additional points that are more pertinent than focusing on this specific instance as far as this thread's topic is concerned. I don't need a reply, just maybe walk some of that feedback up the chain if you consider it worthwhile to do so.

Since you replied I will also and we can leave it at that as far as the post is concerned:

I won't argue that it was about social issues though, definitely it was. But I was not trying to be provocative, just provide additional evidence that other people, particularly those who didn't live through that strife, may not remember or know about. It was a worldwide event, not a politically partisan thing, and it happened on the very platform being discussed, and the thread topic was about how the new owner was making decisions that were crippling the platform which seemed puzzling to most people at the time. I was offering a possible explanation and some additional context.

I think that's all I have to say on the topic or the moderation in general for now. Thanks for the opportunity.

 

[Doctor Q]

I absolutely agree it was about social issues. But remember the context was social media which inherently involves social issues. You can't, I think, have one without the other.

I see. You are taking issue with the editors' decision to put the thread in the MacRumors.com News Discussion forum and not the Political News forum. I don't envy them making that decision with every news story. But once they do, that determines whether political posts are permitted in the discussion thread.

 

[I7guy]

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.

In my opinion people don’t speak up because the majority don’t have or have little criticism of moderation the way it is today. Most noise is made by the vocal minority, not the silent majority.

I keep hearing the excuse 'It's their site, their rules' but does that allow them to treat members unfairly and/or unjustly?

Imo, nobody is treated unjustly. Not liking a moderation decision is not equivalent of being treated unjustly. From what I’ve seen in moderation actions made public the moderators had the justification with the moderation action.

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?

Because this website is privately owned.

This forum as a lot of very good sections but there is room for improvement.

Sure with all human endeavors there is always 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.

No it’s not. People have the opportunity to air their gripes or praises in a civil manner. It’s the moderators opinion that at this time this forum is not a free for all.

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.

The way this site is managed is not a free for all at this point in time.

 

[laptech]

I see. You are taking issue with the editors' decision to put the thread in the MacRumors.com News Discussion forum and not the Political News forum. I don't envy them making that decision with every news story. But once they do, that determines whether political posts are permitted in the discussion thread.

This just proves my point about wanting to control how the site members behave. Putting the thread in the Political news forum would have allowed members more freedom to discuss the topic but putting it in news discussion severely restricts what can be discussed because any slight deviation posts are removed for 'political' or 'social issues'. Like I said, it's all about control.

 

[Carrotcruncher]

This just proves my point about wanting to control how the site members behave. Putting the thread in the Political news forum would have allowed members more freedom to discuss the topic but putting it in news discussion severely restricts what can be discussed because any slight deviation posts are removed for 'political' or 'social issues'. Like I said, it's all about control.

I have been moderated a couple of times, I wasnt sure why, I asked why, it was explained, I moved on, if a mod is upsetting people for no good reason I am sure it would be looked at by those in charge of this site, life is too short, people are dying elsewhere, accept it, move on with your life and accept the decision in good faith, or leave !

 

[I7guy]

This just proves my point about wanting to control how the site members behave. Putting the thread in the Political news forum would have allowed members more freedom to discuss the topic but putting it in news discussion severely restricts what can be discussed because any slight deviation posts are removed for 'political' or 'social issues'. Like I said, it's all about control.

It’s possible the editors don’t want every thread to be political and all that goes with it.

So it is about control and maintaining some semblance of a site that not littered with political comments in every news thread.

 

[icanhazmac]

So it is about control and maintaining some semblance of a site that not littered with political comments in every news thread.

^^^ THIS! ^^^

The PRSI forum died for a reason. While some PRSI topics cannot be avoided I don't see the need to have every article and thread littered with it. If those are the conversations you are after there are places that specialize in it, go there!

SHOULD we be able to discuss any topic, PRSI included, in a nuanced and civilized manner.... YES!

CAN we discuss any topic, PRSI included, in a nuanced and civilized manner.... NO! There are simply too many people who do not have this ability, they are the reason we cannot have nice things, like conversations.

 

[Chuckeee]

CAN we discuss any topic, PRSI included, in a nuanced and civilized manner.... NO! There are simply too many people who do not have this ability, they are the reason we cannot have nice things, like conversations.

I agree except, I don’t think it’s a problem with “too many people” lacking the appropriate self-discipline. It is more an issue of a few very prolific individuals (typically on both sides of any specific issue) lacking the appropriate self-discipline.

 

[icanhazmac]

I agree except, I don’t think it’s a problem with “too many people” lacking the appropriate self-discipline. It is more an issue of a few very prolific individuals (typically on both sides of any specific issue) lacking the appropriate self-discipline.

Your point is well taken and I agree. The "too many" I was referring to was population wide, not our tiny community here at MR. There are a very few, but very loud, minority that keep us from having nice things and conversations.

As we try and navigate this "new" communication medium there will be bumps in the road, we will get past them eventually. Until then, I think the best we can do is try to type as if the audience is in the same room we are.

 

[RokinAmerica]

Some people get hurt, some perceive they were hurt, and others manufacture their hurt. The rest just don't care.

I am somewhat amazed at how emotionally affected some forum members are (not just here, every forum I read).

There is a lot in the world to cause one to have angst. This website, the moderation, in my opinion are not reasons.

 

[VisceralRealist]

It’s possible the editors don’t want every thread to be political and all that goes with it.

So it is about control and maintaining some semblance of a site that not littered with political comments in every news thread.

Every news thread, perhaps, though I do have to wonder why practically every action of Mr. Musk deserves its own article on a Mac forum. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a strong opinion on the man. The topic seems to invite controversy. If the Political News section simply allows for this kind of discussion, then maybe threads about certain known-to-be-controversial topics (Musk/X being just one example) should automatically be placed there. It seems like it would be less work for the mods as well.

 

[chown33]

I'm going to repeat something I posted earlier in this thread.

All moderation reminders include the following text and link (bold in original):

If you have concerns or questions about this notice, submit them using the Contact form.

I invite those posters in this thread who have questions about why a specific post they made was moderated to use the Contact form.

Also see the Moderation FAQ.

 

[laptech]

I have been moderated a couple of times, I wasnt sure why, I asked why, it was explained, I moved on, if a mod is upsetting people for no good reason I am sure it would be looked at by those in charge of this site, life is too short, people are dying elsewhere, accept it, move on with your life and accept the decision in good faith, or leave !

I'll give an example: There are many many cases where doctors have wrongly diagnosed a medical problem resulting in either the person dying or having long term health complications. All those doctors explained their findings and expected the patient(s) to accept it and move on but they didn't, they questioned the doctors findings and got second opinions and found the initial doctors findings were wrong.

The above is a very good example of why people should not just 'accept things' if they think they have been wronged just as with cases of moderation. Respectively, your point of view is wrong, people should not just accept it and move on if they feel they have been wronged.

If you want to go through life never questioning things then that is your prerogative but please do not go telling others how to go about living theirs.

 

[laptech]

I'm going to repeat something I posted earlier in this thread.

All moderation reminders include the following text and link (bold in original):


I invite those posters in this thread who have questions about why a specific post they made was moderated to use the Contact form.

Also see the Moderation FAQ.

You should inform members that using the contact form comes with limits. A few months ago I used the 'contact us' link to ask why a post got removed and reprimanded for. It was explained to me why I was moderated and I did not agree with it because I felt the mod did not fully understand the context of my post. I tried to explain this via the contact us link but after two messages I got shot down by the person responding saying the discussion had ended. It had not ended in my opinion, it still needed to be discussed but I couldn't because the person who dealt with it would not allow me to. It therefore say's to me that you can use the contact us link BUT it comes with limits. If an admin is not prepared to debate a wrong moderated decision then it needs to be made clear in the rules section that the contact us is limited to how far you can argue your case.

 

[Apple fanboy]

You should inform members that using the contact form comes with limits. A few months ago I used the 'contact us' link to ask why a post got removed and reprimanded for. It was explained to me why I was moderated and I did not agree with it because I felt the mod did not fully understand the context of my post. I tried to explain this via the contact us link but after two messages I got shot down by the person responding saying the discussion had ended. It had not ended in my opinion, it still needed to be discussed but I couldn't because the person who dealt with it would not allow me to. It therefore say's to me that you can use the contact us link BUT it comes with limits. If an admin is not prepared to debate a wrong moderated decision then it needs to be made clear in the rules section that the contact us is limited to how far you can argue your case.

When the mods are volunteers I understand why there is a limitation on the contact us form.
@Doctor Q does the contact us link go to the mods or the admins (or perhaps both?).
Or do they get escalated to admins after a certain amount of time or interactions?

 

[I7guy]

You should inform members that using the contact form comes with limits. A few months ago I used the 'contact us' link to ask why a post got removed and reprimanded for. It was explained to me why I was moderated and I did not agree with it because I felt the mod did not fully understand the context of my post. I tried to explain this via the contact us link but after two messages I got shot down by the person responding saying the discussion had ended. It had not ended in my opinion, it still needed to be discussed but I couldn't because the person who dealt with it would not allow me to. It therefore say's to me that you can use the contact us link BUT it comes with limits. If an admin is not prepared to debate a wrong moderated decision then it needs to be made clear in the rules section that the contact us is limited to how far you can argue your case.

Maybe it’s a good thing you’re making a case to cover every nuance in the MR FAQs as some additional clarity will come out of the discussion.

Having said that is it reasonable for a poster to expect continued discussion after the contact us form has been used and for the second time the decision was held firm? By saying the contact us form comes with limits, I take it to mean the poster doesn’t get the right to have unlimited back and forth and take up more time and more resources of the staff.

Maybe the rules will be amended to state that the contact us form doesn’t come with a guarantee of an unlimited amount of discussion in an attempt to get the ruling reversed.

At least in my opinion it’s much easier to post within the rules than criticize the system on S&FF and try to get the rules changed when it seems to be the case the overall moderation framework is here to stay.

 

[Doctor Q]

When the mods are volunteers I understand why there is a limitation on the contact us form.
@Doctor Q does the contact us link go to the mods or the admins (or perhaps both?).
Or do they get escalated to admins after a certain amount of time or interactions?

Contact messages are read and handled by the administrators. If they think a case is settled, they may say so, but that doesn't prevent a user from continuing to reply if they have something new to add. And any user who isn't satisfied with moderation, and the results of a Contact conversation, especially in case of a forum ban, can appeal to the site owner. The administrators sometimes reverse the decisions of the moderators, after reviewing a case of moderation, and the administrators have also been overruled.

 

[laptech]

Contact messages are read and handled by the administrators. If they think a case is settled, they may say so, but that doesn't prevent a user from continuing to reply if they have something new to add. And any user who isn't satisfied with moderation, and the results of a Contact conversation, especially in case of a forum ban, can appeal to the site owner. The administrators sometimes reverse the decisions of the moderators, after reviewing a case of moderation, and the administrators have also been overruled.

I've looked at the Moderation FAQ and no where does it state about being able to appeal to the site owner. Therefore under the section 'What to Do' there needs to be a number 4, explaining that if members are still not happy with a moderated decision they can escalate the matter higher and appeal to the site owner with details on how to contact the site owner for just such a purpose.

If there is a section where it specifically mentions members can appeal to the site owner apologies for missing it.

 

[icanhazmac]

And any user who isn't satisfied with moderation, and the results of a Contact conversation, especially in case of a forum ban, can appeal to the site owner.

It's not often one gets to throw the boss under the bus, enjoy this time @Doctor Q
🤣 /s

 

[Madhatter32]

I've looked at the Moderation FAQ and no where does it state about being able to appeal to the site owner. Therefore under the section 'What to Do' there needs to be a number 4, explaining that if members are still not happy with a moderated decision they can escalate the matter higher and appeal to the site owner with details on how to contact the site owner for just such a purpose.

If there is a section where it specifically mentions members can appeal to the site owner apologies for missing it.

Probably discretionary if issue is elevated by the moderators (maybe upon request). Logic dictates that these things would need to be screened or else why have moderators at all? The owner would need to retire to address your and other's complaints. I am sure the site owner would choose to get involved to address an actual issue or problem, not a any old complaint or someone's hurt feelings.

 

[laptech]

Probably discretionary if issue is elevated by the moderators (maybe upon request). Logic dictates that these things would need to be screened or else why have moderators at all? The owner would need to retire to address your and other's complaints. I am sure the site owner would choose to get involved to address an actual issue or problem, not a any old complaint or someone's hurt feelings.

I am curious, have you ever got into a discussion with the admins who deal with 'contact us'? I have on numerous occasions and not once has it ever been put forward that if I did not agree with the admins decision I could escalate it higher to that of the site owner. Not once but yet we see a post from an admin saying that disputes can be put before the admin. It has neither be said by and admin in contact us or in any of the sites support documents.

I am sure the site owner does not want to get inundated with frivolous complaints but the fact that the option exists it therefore needs to be written into one of the support documents and a written procedure on what are the requirements to get issues raised before the site owner so forum members can be made aware of what the procedure is if at any time they need to use it. What does the admins disservice is knowing about things that are available to forum members to be used but keeping it to themselves. Did you know that if you was not happy with a moderated decision and used the contact us link to ask for an explanation and if still not happy your complaint could be raised to the site owner? because I didn't, no admin mentioned it in the times I have questioned a moderated decision and disagreed with them and neither is it on any of the support documents but apparently admin DoctorQ knew about it. How many other admins and mods knew but kept it quiet?

 

[Madhatter32]

I am curious, have you ever got into a discussion with the admins who deal with 'contact us'? I have on numerous occasions and not once has it ever been put forward that if I did not agree with the admins decision I could escalate it higher to that of the site owner. Not once but yet we see a post from an admin saying that disputes can be put before the admin. It has neither be said by and admin in contact us or in any of the sites support documents.

I am sure the site owner does not want to get inundated with frivolous complaints but the fact that the option exists it therefore needs to be written into one of the support documents and a written procedure on what are the requirements to get issues raised before the site owner so forum members can be made aware of what the procedure is if at any time they need to use it. What does the admins disservice is knowing about things that are available to forum members to be used but keeping it to themselves. Did you know that if you was not happy with a moderated decision and used the contact us link to ask for an explanation and if still not happy your complaint could be raised to the site owner? because I didn't, no admin mentioned it in the times I have questioned a moderated decision and disagreed with them and neither is it on any of the support documents but apparently admin DoctorQ knew about it. How many other admins and mods knew but kept it quiet?

I am not a shill for the moderators. But to answer your question, yes, I have had experience -- not all of which has been particularly pleasant. That said, and in fairness, I have even had previous posts removed and then reinstated after it was determined (amongst the moderators and owner I assume) that there would be a change in policy. This was during the old days with the politics forum.

Anyway, with regard to your main point, I think that asking for a direct appeal right to the owner is a bit unrealistic for the reasons you state in your post. If the moderator suggested there is such a right, they should certainly clarify what they mean. If I was the owner, I certainly would want to know about a moderator abusing or not doing their job well -- so perhaps that is why there is a thread just like this one. Just my 2 cents. I respect your opinion.

 

[laptech]

I am not a shill for the moderators. But to answer your question, yes, I have had experience -- not all of which has been particularly pleasant. That said, and in fairness, I have even had previous posts removed and then reinstated after it was determined (amongst the moderators and owner I assume) that there would be a change in policy. This was during the old days with the politics forum.

Anyway, with regard to your main point, I think that asking for a direct appeal right to the owner is a bit unrealistic for the reasons you state in your post. If the moderator suggested there is such a right, they should certainly clarify what they mean. If I was the owner, I certainly would want to know about a moderator abusing or not doing their job well -- so perhaps that is why there is a thread just like this one. Just my 2 cents. I respect your opinion.

It maybe unrealistic to have appeals heard by the site owner but the fact of the matter is such an option existed and it was kept hidden from us members.

The tax office is very well known for 'don't ask, don't tell'. If someone does not ask the question, do not freely tell them it exists and it seems that is the case with the mods/admins of this forum, they will not freely divulge information that could assist members and will only do so if the right question(s) is asked. Do you think that is an acceptable way to run things? because I don't.

 

[I7guy]

[…]. Do you think that is an acceptable way to run things? because I don't.

Yes I think the way things are run are actually pretty good. It’s easy to pick on one thing and make that one thing a cause in and of itself and make this one thing seem like the Achilles heel.

But this site is run fairly well. There’s lots of new content, various forums for user created content, a feedback forum where dialog such as this thread is allowed, a feedback loop to address moderation issues.

Some of what goes in in this thread reminds me of a joke from a woody Allen movie paraphrasing:
- person 1: “The food here is terrible”
- person 2: “Yeah, and such small portions”

So yes, this is an acceptable way to run a business.

 

[avz]

Some of what goes in in this thread reminds me of a joke from a woody Allen movie paraphrasing:
- person 1: “The food here is terrible”
- person 2: “Yeah, and such small portions”

I think what you are getting at is that if you don't like something you need to stop talking about it directly otherwise you are simply promoting the very concepts you don't like. Any publicity is a good publicity.

A black metal band from Sweden Bathory were very smart to realize that by screaming about witchcraft and Satan on their first three albums they ended up promoting the religious concepts they were supposed to attack.

Then Bathory embraced Sweden's own Viking heritage in their music and by doing so their attack on religion became much more subversive(not self-evident) and therefore on a much more intellectual level.