[subego]

Something hit me about the is banning users helpful thread.

Moderators here want to be "fair", and whether or not they are "fair" is the cause of most (if not all) the moderator/user strife.

Kevin had a blowout (see details in other thread) because he felt the moderators were "unfair" to RR. Rob is a nuisance because his bannings are "unfair", he's only giving back what he gets.

In the other thread, plenty of people chimed in to mention that MacNN is under absolutely no obligation to be fair. To be honest it kind of irritated me. It seems blisteringly obvious, why are these people bringing it up?

That's when it hit me. Strife is caused by users who have an expectation of fairness. If something unfair happens around here, someone might say something, but if that gets shut down for whatever reason then so be it. The vast majority of users respond by dropping it. They don't (nor should they) have an expectation of fairness to begin with, not to mention that moderators are completely at their discretion to be unfair. As far as I'm concerned, this is stated in the rules, as it is for almost any moderated forum.

I understand a moderator desire to be fair, I can't imagine myself not trying my damnedest in that situation, but the ironic upshot of all this is that these peoples' expectation of fairness is probably rooted in the amount of effort shown by moderators trying to prove their fairness to them.

That's not most of the users. Shouldn't we be the ones towards whom the majority of moderator effort is spent?



This brings us to the publicly reported bans. Unless I'm way off base, the reason this is viewed as a Pandora's box is because this will cause people like Rob to have meltdowns, and people like Kevin to needle the moderators to death.

If the moderators feel an overwhelming desire to prove their fairness to these people, then yes, this is a Pandora's box, and it would be best to let it stay closed.

The only reason I am bringing this up is that I imagine the moderators are interested in not spending time on those people.

The solution is simple. To some people, some decisions are just going to be unfair. One can debate to whom and how the railroad thread (see link above for details) was unfair, however there is no debating that Kevin felt it was unfair. The only satisfactory answer to him was an admission it was unfair.

Well, as far as he was concerned it was unfair. So you know what? To him, it was. Nothing a moderator could say would change his mind. If instead the attitude was "I can see why you think this is unfair, but this is the final decision and the subject is closed", to be perfectly honest, I think Kevin would have dropped it at that point, or at least voted with his feet rather than have a meltdown.

How much time has been spent trying to prove to Kevin that this board is "fair" to religious people? In all of that, has anyone really thought the board is fair the way he wants it to be fair?

It isn't, and it never will be. The response to this shouldn't be anger at the implication, or determined effort to show it as untrue.

The response is: "Yes it is unfair. Too bad. The subject is now closed."

Reopening a closed subject is grounds for a tempban in any other circumstance, why wouldn't that be the case with someone reopening a closed discussion over a ban? Even if the decision was unfair.

Rules are always subject to interpretation, and as user it is currently impossible to see how the moderators are interpreting them. Publicly reporting bans will help us follow the rules. This will make the board better, which I assume is first and foremost in any moderator's mind.

[Mastrap]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about but I suspect that you're taking this whole thing way too seriously.

[subego]

Fair enough.

[besson3c]

I agree with everything said here. You've got some smart ideas here subego!

[Atomic Rooster]

Wuzzzup?

[badidea]

Just take it like a football game (not american football) - there are rules and there are referees.
When a referee´makes a descision that is unfair in your eyes you don't question it or you'll see a yellow card. If you still don't stop you'll see a red card and are out of the game!!
If there's a foul but the referee didn't see it, then you don't start an argument with the referee and bitch about it or...(see above)!
That's the way it goes and you have to accept it - no matter if the descision was good and fair or not!

It's a game with referees and NOT real life!

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree with everything said here. You've got some smart ideas here subego!

Thank you.

[analogika]

See it this way:

There's a couple of THOUSAND (ten-thousands?) registered users here, and probably a couple of HUNDRED regular contributors.

There's about six people who equate their right to be an asshole with some weird expectation that a business platform should provide them the right to "free speech" and "fair treatment".

I hold it with Carlin: "If you don't like the weather: Move!"

[red rocket]

I don't view internet forums as ‘business platforms’, I view them as open places for people to give speeches and have free discussions without fear of oppression or censorship. Any form of moderation in such an environment should be an absolute last resort, and I think the fact that people get upset by what they perceive as heavy-handed and dictatorial interference in their god-given right to say what they please is perfectly justified and commendable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I view them as open places for people to give speeches and have free discussions without fear of oppression or censorship.

**** censorship.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I don't view internet forums as ‘business platforms’, I view them as open places for people to give speeches and have free discussions without fear of oppression or censorship. .

What you view and what the reality is, are two different things. As an example, 'NN chooses not to have threads on how to/where to pirate software. Other subjects are also a no-no.

'NN, like any other business is setup to make money (which is why we see those ads) and to that point they have rules on what we can and cannot discuss.

Other forums are even more stringent. I'm thinking of the apple discussion forums. They regularly "scrub" unapproved posts/threads from their site.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by analogika 

See it this way:

There's a couple of THOUSAND (ten-thousands?) registered users here, and probably a couple of HUNDRED regular contributors.
...

You can see the membership total near the bottom of the front page, in the "What's Going On?" box. 76,357 registrations as I check it now. MacNN Forums are a small city.

Currently Active shows at 322, that is the number of unique visitors within the last 15 minutes. I'm not sure how many are active overall, which I would take to be unique visitors within the last week.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by reader50 

You can see the membership total near the bottom of the front page, in the "What's Going On?" box. 76,357 registrations as I check it now. MacNN Forums are a small city.

Of course, about 30,000 of those citizens are probably Rob.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I don't view internet forums as ‘business platforms’, I view them as open places for people to give speeches and have free discussions without fear of oppression or censorship. Any form of moderation in such an environment should be an absolute last resort, and I think the fact that people get upset by what they perceive as heavy-handed and dictatorial interference in their god-given right to say what they please is perfectly justified and commendable.

In which case you're divorced from reality. Of course this is a business venture, what else could it possibly be? And all of this drama is good for business, because it keeps people hooked and the page view up. And that means more ad revenue.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Of course this is a business venture

Not for the mods…

[Mastrap]

The mods follow rules given to them by the owners. The mods have no real power here of any kind, they enforce the rules, they don't make them.

[ghporter]

This is not at all a business for me. Everyone is, as far as I know, a volunteer, me included. I got a nice written agreement not to scuttle MacNN out of it, but other than that, I hang out here because I like to. I probably need to get the old noggin checked out for that, but there it is.

We try to be as fair as possible to the whole of our user population. That means when we finally get tired of someone manipulating other members, or their grandstanding, or their absolutely unacceptable levels of attack on whatever, we take action to be fair to the 99.999% of other users who don't appreciate their antics either. So I think we are fair, but to the aggregate first and foremost. We also try to be fair to individuals, but my definition of "fair" apparently doesn't match that of some people. I take action on something as soon as I see it, but since I have this distraction called a "life," and don't live on the forums 24/7, stuff can happen in between someone being an ass and me catching them. To me this isn't "unfair", it's "who started it." It works for me.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Of course, about 30,000 of those citizens are probably Rob.

How did I get here?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I don't view internet forums as ‘business platforms’, I view them as open places for people to give speeches and have free discussions without fear of oppression or censorship.

Would you seriously apply that thought to the Dell support forums?

Or a Mercedes-Benz-run tech support forum?

Or, in fact, ANY forum owned by a business whose main interest must be making money?

Why here?

I'm pretty sure that where you live, the Right to Free Speech don't mean **** on private property. In fact, if you violate the rules set forth by the owner of that property in any way, he can have you removed, or even arrested for trespassing, AFAIK.

These are not the forums you are looking for.
</obi_wan>

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We try to be as fair as possible to the whole of our user population. That means when we finally get tired of someone manipulating other members, or their grandstanding, or their absolutely unacceptable levels of attack on whatever, we take action to be fair to the 99.999% of other users who don't appreciate their antics either. So I think we are fair, but to the aggregate first and foremost. We also try to be fair to individuals, but my definition of "fair" apparently doesn't match that of some people. I take action on something as soon as I see it, but since I have this distraction called a "life," and don't live on the forums 24/7, stuff can happen in between someone being an ass and me catching them. To me this isn't "unfair", it's "who started it." It works for me.

This would seem to be unintentional on your part, but this is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

The mods (or admin in your case) feel the need to justify themselves to the users.

What I'm saying is that the 99.999% don't think you do.

The only people who are asking for justification are the .001%. For various and differing reasons, this .001% will never be satisfied with your justifications.

All trying to justify yourself to this .001% is going to do is encourage them to continue to call you unfair, to which you respond by trying to justify yourself. To which they call you unfair, to which you again justify yourself. It's never going to end.

If I may use an analogy I think you'll appreciate, break this down into victory conditions. What is your personal victory condition? What is the victory condition for the 99.999% of the users? Are they the same?

As I've said, to me it appears the mods' VC is to demonstrate their fairness.

The VC for 99.999% of users is to get the .001% to stop needling the mods. They make you defensive, pissed-off and ornery. The rest of us suffer for it. As I said above. As far as the 99.999% is concerned, you are too fair. We don't expect the amount of fairness you provide, and it's counterproductive to try and provide it.

The manner you have chosen to deal with the .001% has an unintentional negative effect on the other 99.999%.

[analogika]

Actually, that's a pretty good point.

Perhaps the occasional "I don't care. Shut up." could have done more good at keeping the more interesting people around...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

This would seem to be unintentional on your part, but this is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

The mods (or admin in your case) feel the need to justify themselves to the users.

What I'm saying is that the 99.999% don't think you do.

I don't feel any need to justify myself. However, it is important to not be frivolous or capricious when taking action. There needs to be a reason for banning someone, for editing their posts, and so on. Without this, it's just "these are the big guys around here and you have to listen to them or they'll beat you up." We don't do that.

However, I do kind of like the idea that a misbehaving user's misbehavior doesn't have to be painfully obvious for the majority of users to see that they've misbehaved. Having to be even handed is a good thing-it means that we actually think about how someone's nasty crack or venomous retort may have come from their experience in the real world (yes it really exists) rather than some character flaw. But I think that we're getting a handle on being more attentive to what's happening in close to real time, and more prompt in dealing with problems when they start. I'm glad to see that many users think the shenanigans of late have had a negative impact on the forums, and that the staff has been less harsh and less free with punishments. We don't get a lot of feedback in this job, and what we do get is typically pretty harsh. Some "hey, you could have cut that crap off at the second post" feedback is pretty nice to hear.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

However, it is important to not be frivolous or capricious when taking action. There needs to be a reason for banning someone, for editing their posts, and so on. Without this, it's just "these are the big guys around here and you have to listen to them or they'll beat you up." We don't do that.

Having to be even handed is a good thing-it means that we actually think about how someone's nasty crack or venomous retort may have come from their experience in the real world (yes it really exists) rather than some character flaw.

Absolutely. I let my phrasing be extreme for clarity (like that worked )

If I had any genuine fear of unfairness on your part, I would have used less forceful language. Or more likely, never have brought it up in the first place.

Or even be here in the first place.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I'm glad to see that many users think the shenanigans of late have had a negative impact on the forums, and that the staff has been less harsh and less free with punishments. We don't get a lot of feedback in this job, and what we do get is typically pretty harsh. Some "hey, you could have cut that crap off at the second post" feedback is pretty nice to hear.

I think this could benefit even when the times are different. As staff changes, so does the board.

For example, the issue of threads being Tookinized back in the day.

Though I can't speak for everyone, what torqued me off wasn't the rule against nonsense threads, or the way he enforced the rule (though admittedly many, including myself, would have preferred a different interpretation).

It was his insistence that his was the right way to interpret it, even though there were scads of people who disagreed with that interpretation, and really weren't making an invalid point in doing so.

If his attitude had been "of course there are various ways this can be interpreted, but the way I interpret it is the way it goes." I don't think we would have seen much problem. Really, what else can you say to that? This is the equivalent of what analogika said: "I don't care. Shut up."

Instead, the way Tooki approached it was the equivalent "I don't care. Shut up... and LIKE IT BECAUSE I AM RIGHT."

No much you can say to that either, but boy did I want to say something.

[Chuckit]

Eh, tooki was awesome. I really don't think acting like a supercilious prick would have made the people who didn't like him less angry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Eh, tooki was awesome. I really don't think acting like a supercilious prick would have made the people who didn't like him less angry.

How is acknowledging that everybody can't be satisfied over a polarized issue being a supercilious prick?

I wasn't providing a script, I was showing a general approach.

Your opinion, my opinion, and his opinion on nonsense threads are all completely valid. The only difference is that one of us had mushrooms instead of stars.

IOW I chose to provide that particular approach because it represents the truth.

[Chuckit]

If somebody were to walk up and say to me, "You know, I intend to treat you completely unfairly and you don't get to talk back," I'd probably think something along the lines of, "Wow, this guy is a supercilious prick."

[subego]

Did you see my edit?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If somebody were to walk up and say to me, "You know, I intend to treat you completely unfairly and you don't get to talk back," I'd probably think something along the lines of, "Wow, this guy is a supercilious prick."

I want to make sure we aren't talking at cross purposes.

I'm imagining (and my example is relevant to) the endgame of a discussion.

At least the way you phrase it, it seems to me you think I am talking about the opening gambit.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by analogika

Would you seriously apply that thought to the Dell support forums?

Or a Mercedes-Benz-run tech support forum?

Or, in fact, ANY forum owned by a business whose main interest must be making money?

Why here?

Because in the eight years that I've been here (lurked for two before registering), MacNN Forums have always struck me as being about discussion and community more than business. What sort of business do you think these forums are supposed to be, anyway? What are MacNN Forums selling?

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

What are MacNN Forums selling?

Page views.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Because in the eight years that I've been here (lurked for two before registering), MacNN Forums have always struck me as being about discussion and community more than business. What sort of business do you think these forums are supposed to be, anyway? What are MacNN Forums selling?

Ad space, macnn.com visitors, higher Google rankings for macnn.com based on this affiliation, etc.

Why would you assume that this forum is operating pro bono?

[red rocket]

Ad space, exactly.

The forums get a lot of hits, so it makes sense for companies to pay the owner to run their advertisements. The question is, how much influence have these companies bought? Some people here seem to be suggesting that nobody should expect any of the conditions of fairness, free speech and objectivity from mods and admins one would normally expect in an open forum because MacNN Forums are a ‘business venture’.

If you accept the proposition that the raison d'être of MacNN Forums is the selling of advertising space (rather than, say, Mac‑centric discussion), the inevitable conclusion is that the advertisers have influence over what is allowed to be posted, as in being able to dictate that posts and topics critical of certain companies get deleted, members banned as a result, and so on.

I do realise that bandwidth costs money, but nowhere here are members expected to sign an agreement that they're going to refrain from criticising MacNN's paymasters. This isn't bloody China or Nazi Germany, you know.

[analogika]

Godwin called. Idiot.

What I don't get is what the hell is so hard for you to understand:

You are not the customer here - the ad services are the customer. If a (small) handful of people roll into this business (and agree to the membership agreement in the process) with the misled belief that this is not in fact a clearly-delineated business, but some sort of free rights charity thing, or because their own little neuroses require an ego-trip playground, or whatever, and in the process prove detrimental to the community by annoying a couple of hundred other users off the forums with their behavior, then the business loses money.

Coupled with the fact that it's perfectly within MacNN's rights to just shut up users or outright ban them completely at their own discretion, well...

And when things do get out of hand, this market regulates itself, as the failed NewsFactor buyout, and the embarrassing attempt to stick ad-words into forum contents showed. Both of those incidents threatened to cause the loss of a BUNCH of users, and the breakdown of a business model that had hitherto worked fairly well.

Apart from that, I've yet to see an ad-banner-critical thread that was squashed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Ad space, exactly.

The forums get a lot of hits, so it makes sense for companies to pay the owner to run their advertisements. The question is, how much influence have these companies bought? Some people here seem to be suggesting that nobody should expect any of the conditions of fairness, free speech and objectivity from mods and admins one would normally expect in an open forum because MacNN Forums are a ‘business venture’.

If you accept the proposition that the raison d'être of MacNN Forums is the selling of advertising space (rather than, say, Mac‑centric discussion), the inevitable conclusion is that the advertisers have influence over what is allowed to be posted, as in being able to dictate that posts and topics critical of certain companies get deleted, members banned as a result, and so on.

I do realise that bandwidth costs money, but nowhere here are members expected to sign an agreement that they're going to refrain from criticising MacNN's paymasters. This isn't bloody China or Nazi Germany, you know.

I'm not saying that the sole purpose of MacNN Forums is to sell ad space. Let's look at this another way... Here are the costs involved with running this board:

- dedicated server colo/lease (I'm assuming that this server is dedicated since MacNN does its own DNS lookups via dns1.macnn.com and dns2.macnn.com)
- server administration
- vBulletin license (MacNN is run on CentOS, so there are no OS license fees)
- system/server resources and their associated costs


MacNN obviously figures that it is profitable for them to ensue these costs. Why would that be? What is in it for MacNN? What are your theories?

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Some people here seem to be suggesting that nobody should expect any of the conditions of fairness, free speech

I'd rework "**** censorship" but I have a fat stack of PlayStation 3 games a life.

Merry ****ing Christmas, and God bless the **** out of everyone!

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Godwin called. Idiot.

What I don't get is what the hell is so hard for you to understand:

You are not the customer here - the ad services are the customer. If a (small) handful of people roll into this business (and agree to the membership agreement in the process) with the misled belief that this is not in fact a clearly-delineated business, but some sort of free rights charity thing, or because their own little neuroses require an ego-trip playground, or whatever, and in the process prove detrimental to the community by annoying a couple of hundred other users off the forums with their behavior, then the business loses money.

Coupled with the fact that it's perfectly within MacNN's rights to just shut up users or outright ban them completely at their own discretion, well...

And when things do get out of hand, this market regulates itself, as the failed NewsFactor buyout, and the embarrassing attempt to stick ad-words into forum contents showed. Both of those incidents threatened to cause the loss of a BUNCH of users, and the breakdown of a business model that had hitherto worked fairly well.

Apart from that, I've yet to see an ad-banner-critical thread that was squashed.

First of all, people have a right to assume that any forum is open and reasonably anarchic because that is the general nature of the Web, breaking of boundaries and lack of regulation. Within that, there is the obvious understanding that certain types of behaviour (e.g. credible death threats, posting of kiddie porn, questioning the owner's sexual orientation, etc.) would of course lead to one's being banned, but this is where the rules normally end. Any other restrictions upon free speech would need to be expressly stated. Members of this board aren't asked to sign up to any additional rules of conduct, therefore the logical assumption on any member's part would be that there aren't any pressures on them to adhere to any, and that proclamations by individuals that the forum is some kind of fascist business whose evidently arbitrary and inconsistent pseudo‑rules everyone needs to comply with, even though they never signed up to any such agreement, are in fact nothing but hot air.

Secondly, the claim that hundreds of users are being scared away by the shenanigans of a handful of users is preposterous. There are tried and tested ways of dealing with annoying behaviour, namely flaming and ignore lists, and it's common knowledge that bans never, ever, work, anyway. If anything, the recurring and persistent presence of certain people here are part of the charm of these forums, and if everybody just got in line and acted like a good company drone, interest, membership, and consequently advertising revenue would probably begin dropping noticeably.

Thirdly, the driving force behind any forum is a vibrant community of members. Not advertising, not business. There are thousands of people who run free (in both senses) forums, and the typically lax regulation in those is what the forum‑going public is used to and expects. You can't compare a place like this to a Dell support forum or an official Merc forum. If that's what somebody wants in a Mac board, they can go to Apple Discussions, that's its purpose. This is more like a private owner's club, it's not official, it doesn't shout ‘business venture’.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not saying that the sole purpose of MacNN Forums is to sell ad space. Let's look at this another way... Here are the costs involved with running this board:

- dedicated server colo/lease (I'm assuming that this server is dedicated since MacNN does its own DNS lookups via dns1.macnn.com and dns2.macnn.com)
- server administration
- vBulletin license (MacNN is run on CentOS, so there are no OS license fees)
- system/server resources and their associated costs


MacNN obviously figures that it is profitable for them to ensue these costs. Why would that be? What is in it for MacNN? What are your theories?

People are claiming the forums are a business. If that's the case, the exact nature of the business needs to be stated. I don't think any normal person signs on to and participates in a forum with the thought in their head that they're entering into some type of slave contract with a business.

Just because there are costs associated with the running of the place, and having some ads helps to cover those expenses, still doesn't magically transform this into a ‘business venture’ of the kind that some here are suggesting it is, one where commonly appreciated concepts like expectation of fairness and free speech have no place. If you want people to agree to that kind of fascist crap, you have to be very explicit about it right from the beginning.

Happy ****ing Xmas everybody, may the Force be with you.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Any other restrictions upon free speech would need to be expressly stated.

Which planet do you live on?

Seriously?

However, apart from the fact that what you say is COMPLETE BULLSHIT, there's also this bit:

In order to proceed, you must agree with the following rules:
Forum Rules
Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.
[...]
The owners of MacNN Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

The end.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

If anything, the recurring and persistent presence of certain people here are part of the charm of these forums, and if everybody just got in line and acted like a good company drone, interest, membership, and consequently advertising revenue would probably begin dropping noticeably.

Thirdly, the driving force behind any forum is a vibrant community of members. Not advertising, not business. There are thousands of people who run free (in both senses) forums, and the typically lax regulation in those is what the forum‑going public is used to and expects. You can't compare a place like this to a Dell support forum or an official Merc forum. If that's what somebody wants in a Mac board, they can go to Apple Discussions, that's its purpose. This is more like a private owner's club, it's not official, it doesn't shout ‘business venture’.

What? I take it you missed the whole AdSense linkwords crap?

Do you think effgee spent months re-designing this site out of compassion?

What are you - fourteen? - that your time and effort is freely disposable and worth nothing?

This is not a community-owned anarchist discussion forum. This is a subsection of one of the premier Mac news sites, which maintains administrative and editorial staff. Not some outgrowth of Usenet.

Again: Which planet do you live on, and did you miss the commercialization of the internet? FYI: It happened about ten or twelve years ago.

There's probably quite a bit of idealism involved in running these forums, to be sure. But much of that is brought up by the mods.

I know that if this were my forum, and at some point stuff got too far out of hand or just too much effort for dwindling revenue, I'd either clamp down or just kick it.

In fact, I seem to remember a botched sell-out to NewsFactor a couple of years ago. <-- in case you missed it: the word "sell" implies that it was mostly about money.

Why do you think the deal was reversed at the time? Because the climate was ruined and plenty of people were threatening to leave (or just left - many never returned after that). If this forum weren't about money, there would have been no reason at all for NewsFactore to not just close it down and be done with it. But they didn't.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Just because there are costs associated with the running of the place, and having some ads helps to cover those expenses, still doesn't magically transform this into a ‘business venture’ of the kind that some here are suggesting it is, one where commonly appreciated concepts like expectation of fairness and free speech have no place. If you want people to agree to that kind of fascist crap, you have to be very explicit about it right from the beginning.

Life isn't fair. The sooner you learn that, the happier you'll be. You'll stop whining about how unfair life is and you'll go about living it.

Remember, we're not talking about one of Society's Great Injustices here, we're talking about some web site that someone else pays to run. You don't like how it's run? Go start your own. It's been done before!

[OreoCookie]

@redrocket
I think you're blowing things a bit out of proportions. MacNN is a business, and it's certainly not making its money by being a `Mac-centric discussion forum.' It's about page hits, clicks and whatever metric you use for ads. This does not mean the MacNN forums have lost their soul, just because this is a fact. Without these forums, MacNN would not have as many clicks as it does, that's why they kindly offer to pay for bandwidth, servers and maintenance.

The business side of MacNN usually stays out of these forums, though. I think the most prominent exceptions have already been mentioned. However, when these things occurred, users (= people who generate content and click on ads) revolted and policies of the company MacNN have been adjusted.

I also don't think we have a `free speech problem.' We rarely (temp-)ban people and we rarely edit out posts. There have been very few instances we edit out content because of the content (as opposed to presentation, I don't count removing oversized images). The last time we've banned someone for content was when someone spouted off his antisemitic ideas. MacNN is not a democracy, it's more like a private house: there are rules set by the host (= the business MacNN). And I think they're good hosts.

[besson3c]

Analogika: I think you need to calm down buddy. It's really not that big of a deal.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I also don't think we have a `free speech problem.' We rarely (temp-)ban people and we rarely edit out posts. There have been very few instances we edit out content because of the content (as opposed to presentation, I don't count removing oversized images). The last time we've banned someone for content was when someone spouted off his antisemitic ideas. MacNN is not a democracy, it's more like a private house: there are rules set by the host (= the business MacNN). And I think they're good hosts.

Well put

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Analogika: I think you need to calm down buddy. It's really not that big of a deal.

Red rocket is the one pulling comparisons to Nazi Germany, and about how nobody warned him about the "fascist crap" called modding.

I'm just gently pointing him in the right direction, so that he may eventually find his way back to reality.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Do you think effgee spent months re-designing this site out of compassion?

What are you - fourteen? - that your time and effort is freely disposable and worth nothing?

This is not a community-owned anarchist discussion forum. This is a subsection of one of the premier Mac news sites, which maintains administrative and editorial staff. Not some outgrowth of Usenet.

Hmmm. In all the years I've been here, I've visited the main page perhaps twice. You're saying Monish and the other admins are being paid to run this board? I sort of assumed they were doing it on the side, as do quite a few people who do something else for a living.

Again: Which planet do you live on, and did you miss the commercialization of the internet? FYI: It happened about ten or twelve years ago.

Possibly more to your niche of the Web than to mine, I don't automatically view everything as a business venture.

Originally Posted by analogika

There's probably quite a bit of idealism involved in running these forums, to be sure. But much of that is brought up by the mods.

I know that if this were my forum, and at some point stuff got too far out of hand or just too much effort for dwindling revenue, I'd either clamp down or just kick it.

Good thing it isn't, then.

Originally Posted by analogika

In fact, I seem to remember a botched sell-out to NewsFactor a couple of years ago. <-- in case you missed it: the word "sell" implies that it was mostly about money.

Why do you think the deal was reversed at the time? Because the climate was ruined and plenty of people were threatening to leave (or just left - many never returned after that). If this forum weren't about money, there would have been no reason at all for NewsFactore to not just close it down and be done with it. But they didn't.

Which suggests that the power balance is leaning democratically towards the bottom, i.e. the members. To paraphrase someone else, the forum leadership and and advertisers are there for the benefit of the people, not the other way around. The more this ‘business venture’ idea of yours gains acceptance, the less people power there is, which means this board will ultimately tank.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Life isn't fair. The sooner you learn that, the happier you'll be. You'll stop whining about how unfair life is and you'll go about living it.

Remember, we're not talking about one of Society's Great Injustices here, we're talking about some web site that someone else pays to run. You don't like how it's run? Go start your own. It's been done before!

I'm not really complaining about how it's run, I'm objecting to analogika's anti‑democratic, anti‑union ‘Remember, MacNN Forums are a BUSINESS!’ notion, which only serves to discourage debate and stifle criticism of his minority interest group via rude attempts at discrediting alternate viewpoints.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The business side of MacNN usually stays out of these forums, though.

Exactly. I don't think most people who come across this forum actually see it as a business. Which is how it should be, in my opinion. The more of a business reek there is to a forum, the more it tends to put people off.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I also don't think we have a `free speech problem.' We rarely (temp-)ban people and we rarely edit out posts. There have been very few instances we edit out content because of the content (as opposed to presentation, I don't count removing oversized images). The last time we've banned someone for content was when someone spouted off his antisemitic ideas.

Neither do I, particularly. I think a few people are a bit over‑zealous about enforcing the profanity proscription, and personally, I'd ban neither Rob nor Zimphire, but that's pretty much it. I must have missed that one with the anti‑Semitism, though, might have gotten drowned amongst all the anti‑Arab sentiment.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

MacNN is not a democracy, it's more like a private house: there are rules set by the host (= the business MacNN). And I think they're good hosts.

You would say that, of course.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Which suggests that the power balance is leaning democratically towards the bottom, i.e. the members. To paraphrase someone else, the forum leadership and and advertisers are there for the benefit of the people, not the other way around. The more this ‘business venture’ idea of yours gains acceptance, the less people power there is, which means this board will ultimately tank.

I think I understand you a bit better now, but I still think you're wrong.

analogika is 100% correct that MacNN is a business, and management ultimately has the right (if it chooses to exercise it) to exercise a heavy hand here. We are not the customers here, the entities placing the ads here are. He's not just saying that as an excuse to quash debate, or as a justification for actions. He's simply stating a fact: the MacNN forums are run for commercial purposes, and its customers are the companies that buy ad space here, not us.

But that revelation shouldn't bother you. Because we (or, more specifically, our posts) are the product being sold here, and aside from being outright banned or modifying a particular post, management can't really control us (or, more specifically, control which sites we post on) any more then they can control a herd of lolcats.

I was a vocal critic of the silly Intelli-TXT ads that got inserted into people's posts as links a while back. You might type a post about how the Intel Architecture sucks and how Apple should never switch to it, only to find the word "Intel" linked to Dell's storefront after you wrote the post. My complaint centered on the fact that as the one providing content, I resented my words being linked to in-line ads I didn't authorize, and I would stop coming here until things changed. I did exactly that, and apparently other people did too, because they stopped doing it soon after. Was that a victory for the proletariat, or simply a reversal of a bad business decision? Or could it possibly be both?

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The more this ‘business venture’ idea of yours gains acceptance

You've accepted it already by participating.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think I understand you a bit better now, but I still think you're wrong.

analogika is 100% correct that MacNN is a business, and management ultimately has the right (if it chooses to exercise it) to exercise a heavy hand here. We are not the customers here, the entities placing the ads here are. He's not just saying that as an excuse to quash debate, or as a justification for actions. He's simply stating a fact: the MacNN forums are run for commercial purposes, and its customers are the companies that buy ad space here, not us.

But that revelation shouldn't bother you. Because we (or, more specifically, our posts) are the product being sold here, and aside from being outright banned or modifying a particular post, management can't really control us (or, more specifically, control which sites we post on) any more then they can control a herd of lolcats.

I was a vocal critic of the silly Intelli-TXT ads that got inserted into people's posts as links a while back. You might type a post about how the Intel Architecture sucks and how Apple should never switch to it, only to find the word "Intel" linked to Dell's storefront after you wrote the post. My complaint centered on the fact that as the one providing content, I resented my words being linked to in-line ads I didn't authorize, and I would stop coming here until things changed. I did exactly that, and apparently other people did too, because they stopped doing it soon after. Was that a victory for the proletariat, or simply a reversal of a bad business decision? Or could it possibly be both?

:golf clap:

[keyser_soze]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think I understand you a bit better now, but I still think you're wrong.

analogika is 100% correct that MacNN is a business, and management ultimately has the right (if it chooses to exercise it) to exercise a heavy hand here. We are not the customers here, the entities placing the ads here are. He's not just saying that as an excuse to quash debate, or as a justification for actions. He's simply stating a fact: the MacNN forums are run for commercial purposes, and its customers are the companies that buy ad space here, not us.

But that revelation shouldn't bother you. Because we (or, more specifically, our posts) are the product being sold here, and aside from being outright banned or modifying a particular post, management can't really control us (or, more specifically, control which sites we post on) any more then they can control a herd of lolcats.

I was a vocal critic of the silly Intelli-TXT ads that got inserted into people's posts as links a while back. You might type a post about how the Intel Architecture sucks and how Apple should never switch to it, only to find the word "Intel" linked to Dell's storefront after you wrote the post. My complaint centered on the fact that as the one providing content, I resented my words being linked to in-line ads I didn't authorize, and I would stop coming here until things changed. I did exactly that, and apparently other people did too, because they stopped doing it soon after. Was that a victory for the proletariat, or simply a reversal of a bad business decision? Or could it possibly be both?

So we finally won?! stupid intellitext..