thread Closings.

[kylos]

Haha. Yeah, that's why I'm trying the self-deprecating tack.

 

[eyelikeart]

Hmm. Not sure how to go about this, since I have a phobia of certain members of the moderating staff as being excessive power-wielders.

Why do I feel like u are trying to create false/exaggerated issues to bring to attention with the rest of your post? It almost sounds like a political discussion/argument u are trying to ensue. I'm usually the last moderator around here to be 100% serious about things, but your post bothered me.

What is the difference if we close down a multiple topic thread for the sake of keeping conversation going in one thread? In most cases (and I say most, meaning 99% of the time from what I've seen) a linked message is left in a thread to direct the person starting the multiple topic thread to where it's already been posted. If there's conversation going that warrants not being cut off, we'll merge the 2 threads together. Usually, multiple posted threads are reported early enough to prevent them from starting any relevant conversation.

As for bannings, we've been quite lenient on immediately deciding to ban a member. We try to keep the people who flamebait other members out, as well as members who feel they have to go on a crusade to "fight the forces" (perse) & start verbal arguments with us & other members in the public eye. We get a lot of people who are completely unwilling to cooperate, and it becomes a nuisance when we try to PM these people & they turn their PM's off or ignore them. It's more like a 3 strikes you're out situation, unless u are a repeat offender who decides to re-register & come back pulling the same tricks.

If u have specific things to discuss on either of these matters, I'd suggest u PM one or all of us to bring our attention to it. Don't try to paint this picture of us as "excessive power-wielders" if u have nothing to back it, or don't know the full story on what u are saying.

 

[kylos]

Eye, I was hoping to emphasize my phobia and not that any one is an excessive power wielder. You're about the last mod I'd ever be concerned with, so I'm kinda afraid that that post didn't come across right.

And the rest I might pm you once I determine what that is.

 

[eyelikeart]

Eye, I was hoping to emphasize my phobia and not that any one is an excessive power wielder. You're about the last mod I'd ever be concerned with, so I'm kinda afraid that that post didn't come across right.

And the rest I might pm you once I determine what that is.

I appreciate that, but what bothers is me is how u describe it as a phobia. In the past, people who verbalize themselves as feeling a certain mod has a problem with him, it's often been because of a history that person had with said mod. I don't recall a single case where the person didn't end up hanging himself in the end. It's piqued my curiosity more than anything, so maybe I went too far in my above post.

As always, and this goes for anyone with any moderator, feel free to hit me up whenever.

 

[GorillaPaws]

I have no problem with the deleting of redundant posts. I am one of those members who comes here on a daily basis and really loves the content but rarely posts (mainly because I don't feel it adds too much to the content of the discussion). Lately I've beeng getting really tired when all of the page 1 rumor threads degenerating into the "i guess this means pm g5 updates next week" joke to the unrelated topic, followed by the obligatory response about how old the joke is which turns into it's own subtopic of worthless banter. Anything to reduce this garbage is greatly appreciated. I must say the moderators have done an exceptional job for the most part keeping this site top notch. I have never seen spam in a main thread, which is pretty remarkable considering how much there must be that has to get cut. That being said, I feel like some members are paranoid about being banned (i don't know if they have cause to or not) since there are many posts that begin with the disclaimer: "I'm not trying to get banned for X, but..." which itself is just wasted space.
Perhaps the solution to this, since we often do not know why someone was banned, would be a thread listing all of the banned members and their reason for being banned (and like one of the moderators said earlier, the problem usually occurs in pm's, so that could be explained there as well). Furthermore, they could link the banned poster's message (or put it where their location is or something) to that thread, so curious members who may be paranoid, can see the explantion and feel better, knowing that the moderators aren't just "powermongers," or whatever the word was. I think the main reason why some people are so paranoid is because people just disappear and often noone knows why. Sorry if my post is unclear at all (It's been a long day). I must say, this is my favorite online forum, and that is due in no small part to the hard work of the moderaters here, thanks guys.

 

[Capt Underpants]

[snip]
Perhaps the solution to this, since we often do not know why someone was banned, would be a thread listing all of the banned members and their reason for being banned (and like one of the moderators said earlier, the problem usually occurs in pm's, so that could be explained there as well). Furthermore, they could link the banned poster's message (or put it where their location is or something) to that thread, so curious members who may be paranoid, can see the explantion and feel better, knowing that the moderators aren't just "powermongers," or whatever the word was. I think the main reason why some people are so paranoid is because people just disappear and often noone knows why. Sorry if my post is unclear at all (It's been a long day). I must say, this is my favorite online forum, and that is due in no small part to the hard work of the moderaters here, thanks guys.

That's a really good idea. I have often wondered why some posters were banned (tazo, phil of mac, etc.). Granted, it would be alot more work for the mods, depending on how many bans per week we average here at macrumors. How many bannings do we usually have?

 

[eyelikeart]

That's a really good idea. I have often wondered why some posters were banned (tazo, phil of mac, etc.). Granted, it would be alot more work for the mods, depending on how many bans per week we average here at macrumors. How many bannings do we usually have?

I don't know if that's such a great idea. Yes, it would entail more work to do around here, but that's not the case. I hate to say so, but it may be a safer approach to leave it alone & not for the entire community to have access to such info. We get a lot of people come back & re-register after being banned, and if they just shouldn't have the luxury of seeing such info. It could also cause problems when friends of banned members get involved.

As for a rate of bans? There's no real figure there. It can vary from none in a week, to 2-3 in a day. It all depends on circumstances.

 

[kylos]

I don't know if that's such a great idea. Yes, it would entail more work to do around here, but that's not the case. I hate to say so, but it may be a safer approach to leave it alone & not for the entire community to have access to such info. We get a lot of people come back & re-register after being banned, and if they just shouldn't have the luxury of seeing such info. It could also cause problems when friends of banned members get involved.

As for a rate of bans? There's no real figure there. It can vary from none in a week, to 2-3 in a day. It all depends on circumstances.

That's kind of what I've been thinking. Where does right to know interfere with private matters. When a public individual gets banned for a private offense, it really gets tricky. And that, I think causes some confusion.

 

[GorillaPaws]

yeah... I think you are right. It seemed like a good idea in my head at the time, but it really could cause more problems than it solves.

 

[Sun Baked]

That's kind of what I've been thinking. Where does right to know interfere with private matters. When a public individual gets banned for a private offense, it really gets tricky. And that, I think causes some confusion.

Not really, harassment via e-mail and PMs shouldn't be tolerated on the site either.

It doesn't matter if it's a moderator or another member being targeted.

---

Still it is amazing how many of these threads do lead to somebody getting banned.

 

[eyelikeart]

Still it is amazing how many of these threads do lead to somebody getting banned.

Tell me about it. It's just taking things too far that does it.

 

[IrishGold]

Putting someone on global ignore with no warning or reason why.....Someone has a problem with power.....

 

[yamabushi]

Tell me about it. It's just taking things too far that does it.

One potential problem with that is that we often may not realize when things have gone to far until mods take some kind of action. It is much easier to notice the extent to ones own stupidity in hindsight. Of course some people may just like to create a more lively debate without any intent cause serious problems. It is difficult to judge exactly what a mod might believe is "taking things to far" since this is a fairly subjective decision. It is thus inevitable that some will disagree with a particular decision, especially since the decision making process is out of necessity not public information.

Another concern I have is that many people may get overzealous in censoring their own posts out of fear of offending a mod in some fashion. The same attitude could result in a reluctance to PM mods about any problems. This might lead to resentment that could become a problem later on. The only solution to this that I can see would be even more detailed feedback as to what kind of posts are unacceptable in public and private, including examples.

This really isn't meant as a criticism, just an observation. I have experience as a mod on other boards and I know there aren't any easy answers to such problems.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

The general rule is that if a member requires more work from the mods, they get watched. Sometimes it leads to banning, sometimes not. We like everyone to play nice, period. Stay under the radar screen and there won't be any problems - how to get seen on the radar? Look at the rules.

Some people don't get it either, when they get banned, and come back under a new account. That's just going to get you in more trouble because in most cases no banishment is permanent unless you really start messing up.

D

 

[MacZoro]

Self descipline

One potential problem with that is that we often may not realize when things have gone to far until mods take some kind of action.
It is much easier to notice the extent to ones own stupidity in hindsight.
Of course some people may just like to create a more lively debate without any intent cause serious problems.
It is difficult to judge exactly what a mod might believe is "taking things to far" since this is a fairly subjective decision. It is thus inevitable that some will disagree with a particular decision, especially since the decision making process is out of necessity not public information.

Another concern I have is that many people may get overzealous in censoring their own posts out of fear of offending a mod in some fashion.
The same attitude could result in a reluctance to PM mods about any problems.

This might lead to resentment that could become a problem later on.
The only solution to this that I can see would be even more detailed feedback as to what kind of posts are unacceptable in public and private, including examples.

This really isn't meant as a criticism, just an observation. I have experience as a mod on other boards and I know there aren't any easy answers to such problems.

yamabushi makes an excellent presentation of issues.
Likewise, it is beneficial to hear from Moderators with their views.
1. Moderating posts and conduct is not easy, but it is necessary
2. Self-discipline (regarding the rules and common sense) is indeed not always easy in the "heat of the moment" because threads are built upon "reactive" replies and statements, often with a sense of humor, rather than being "objective". Unfortunately, our being too reactive can get messy very quickly. Trying to "deal with an issue" through Humor does not always work as well as a inviting a Moderator to "observe" a thread that is getting out of hand
3. Everyone is usually very RELUCTANT to "rat" on someone, unless the infraction is obvious. Often we can moderate ourselves, but sometimes things get ugly and contentious
4. When to "rat" on a "post" or "poster" is not always clear...until hindsight makes it abundantly clear and then only in retrospect.
5. As yamabushi wisely points out, there is not only a reluctance to "rat" on someone else, but when there are unexplained actions by Moderators, this can have a "chilling effect" on (a) participation, (b) ratting on someone ever, thereby discouraging the discipline process (c) blowing the whistle when a thread gets unintentionally contentious for fear that if the "wrong Moderater" gets involved "bannishment" and other pentalties will be meted out to everyone in sight, including the "whistle blower" him/herself. Who wants to bring the "wrath of Kahn" upon one's self?
6. There appear to be a few "sacred cows" within the forums who seem to be impervious to any descipline by certain moderators regardless of their history of negative posts and baiting words under any reasonable circumstance. Since it seems impossible to get their behavior controlled or modified, good threads can be ruined for members with positive attitudes by a few negative posters.

Therefore, it does seem helpful when Moderators can take the time to
a. alert everyone in a thread that posts are getting out of hand, and sometimes stating specifically "why" or "what" needs to change
b. make reference to Rules (URL with a ##) can help, if not actually quoting them specifically (even then a reference is helpful, reading them again never hurts)

This is the best Mac forum around and the vast majority of members are very helpful, usually very kind, and have positive attitudes, including all the hard working Moderators (I'm convinced that arn never sleeps and is always vigilent for us).

With a unifying interest in everything Apple, I never cease to be amazed at how multi-national/lingual the MacRumors worldwide membership is, yet how literally "next door" some of us are to one another. What's exciting is how well the internet (forums, instant messaging, iSight, etc.) has shrunk boundaries. Although I may think I have "the answer" to someone's Mac problem, I constantly learn about other solutions (often even better than the one I'd thought was perfect) from others, sharing is truly wonderful.

 

[jxyama]

you know, i also think yamabushi makes good points, but at the same time, we aren't babies here...

mods aren't babysitters... they are moderators. the premise is that we are all mature enough to not be a nuisance to them and (more importantly) to others in MR community... i'm not sure if mods need to explain their actions... sure, explanations are nice and informative, but i don't think they've ever overreacted in a way such that we all need to be paranoid and self-censoring to make sure we don't get banned...

 

[Krizoitz]

It would be incredibly ironic if at some point the mods decide to close a thread on thread closings

 

[Koodauw]

I have seen several threads that have posts by members that have been "banned." Are these posts that have been made prior to the banning, or can you still post ofter you have been banned. And if so, what exactly does being banned restrict you to?

 

[Rower_CPU]

I have seen several threads that have posts by members that have been "banned." Are these posts that have been made prior to the banning, or can you still post ofter you have been banned. And if so, what exactly does being banned restrict you to?

When a member is banned, their status changes from regular/newbie/whatever to "Banned" - all their posts will appear with their current status.

Banning restricts users from logging in and everything that comes with it (posting, sending/receiving PMs, etc.). They can still read the forums as guests.

edit - I also thought I would add that sometimes bans are temporary, or occur as the result of a mistake or miscommunication and can be overturned.

 

[coolsoldier]

The moderation on these boards seems pretty acceptable -- If you ever visit an unmoderated site, it's pretty obvious that even if moderation is excessive occasionally, it's a lot better than having inadequate moderation. I don't mind having a post I've made deleted every now and then, in exchange for not having to read every garbage post that somebody decides to put up. It's only a website for crying out loud -- it doesn't need to be taken that seriously, and complaining about censorship seems a little over the top to me.

That said, I think the recently added "threaded view" is extremely helpful in avoiding pointless or off topic discussions. If a discussion develops around a pointless post, it's easy to ignore the subsequent off topic replies.

 

[Squire]

This is an interesting thread. I think it's nice to know why someone gets banned and, initially, I thought seeing some PM text would be interesting. However, I think that's more for the sake of curiosity than actual need for info; they're called private messages for a reason.

Someone mentioned seeing examples of things (i.e. watered down messages) that would get you banned. Maybe that would satisfy some people. Personally, I think the banning/thread closing/deletion of posts is pretty much common sense. I saw some examples in the past of members just ranting and raving. It was as if they were trying to get banned. (In a warped sort of way, it was kind of entertaining reading the posts after the fact. Not unlike The Jerry Springer Show.)

Either way, I think most (all?) people really appreciate the mature nature of discourse here at MacRumors.

Squire

Afterthought: Do you think it would be possible to see a message before the first post stating that the thread was closed? Or do you guys already do that? I recall reading an interesting 8-page thread in its entirety in the hopes of posting a message. I was disappointed when I read the final post.

 

[Rower_CPU]

...
Afterthought: Do you think it would be possible to see a message before the first post stating that the thread was closed? Or do you guys already do that? I recall reading an interesting 8-page thread in its entirety in the hopes of posting a message. I was disappointed when I read the final post.

Sorry, but it's not possible since posts are displayed only in chronological order - unless you have a time machine you'd like to lend us.

Just keep an eye out for the padlock icon next to the thread title in the forum view or the closed button where the "post reply" one usually is (top left and bottom left of every page of the thread) and you'll save yourself the let down.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hopefully I have" played nice".

I further write as to why some topics are closed, when other aren't when I asked the question about why "Political Discussions" aren't listed on the main page.


I wrote since a "mod" felt that the topic of US treatment of Iraqi prisoners was being done in the political forum, and the Current News thread was closed. . The topic went off into a 'grammar lesson'.

What prompted me to write was the closing of the "Iraqi prisoner scandal" thread. Compared to some of the current threads in the Current News or Community Forums, this one was tame. At least IMO it was being handled much more like current events that some of the threads that i referenced.

I guess I write from the standpoint that some Current News discussions get too much for the scope, a honest response from the moderators would be nicer than a more "politically correct" response.

For the OSX Features" thread and the WTC dedication thread were much more "political" IMO.

If threads are to be closed or moved it needs to much more consistent. Much more than with the thread that I initially wrote about.

 

[Squire]

Just keep an eye out for the padlock icon next to the thread title in the forum view or the closed button where the "post reply" one usually is (top left and bottom left of every page of the thread) and you'll save yourself the let down.

Funny you mention that, Rower. The first time I noticed it was in the thread mentioned below.

I further write as to why some topics are closed, when other aren't when I asked the question about why "Political Discussions" aren't listed on the main page.

I don't know for sure but I'll make a guess:

This site is promoted as a Macintosh discussion site. Everything else (politics, current events, etc.) is just here as kind of a bonus to keep people using the site even when there are "down" times. The "political discussion" threads sometimes get a little dicey, I've been told, and therefore should not be included on the front page. (Just like a university doesn't have pictures of its riff-raff students on the academic calendar, the MacRumors team doesn't want the political threads to be so easily accessed by the masses. It might not make a great impression.)

I wrote since a "mod" felt that the topic of US treatment of Iraqi prisoners was being done in the political forum, and the Current News thread was closed. . The topic went off into a 'grammar lesson'.

What prompted me to write was the closing of the "Iraqi prisoner scandal" thread. Compared to some of the current threads in the Current News or Community Forums, this one was tame. At least IMO it was being handled much more like current events that some of the threads that i referenced.

Actually, I knew that that thread should not have been where it was but I posted a comment anyway...I guess just because I could. (To be honest, I expected to see a post at the end declaring that the thread had been closed.) Chip NoVaMac, you do have a point, though. The comments in that thread were fairly tame. However, I think the moderators, at times, have to be proactive rather than reactive. They also have to be consistent. Politics is to be discussed in the political forum. Period. (I didn't end up venturing into the political forum to follow up on the thread. Never been in there. I've just heard horror stories.)

Rower, am I on target with any of these comments?

Squire

 

[Rower_CPU]

Yeah, I think that's a pretty accurate analysis, Squire.

Most times, the political nature of a topic trumps its relation to current events, Mac news, etc. We sometimes miss a thread or two in the community area that turns too political, but we do our best.