Labeling RO Threads

[Sage Rat]

I think it was about two years ago that someone complained about all the Recreational Outrage threads swamping the Pit. After that their number dropped off and people started to label them as 'RO' in the title. Over time, though, they stopped doing it.

It seems like a decent enough quasi-rule to make that people should try and label their threads as RO, just as they would label it NSFW or TMI or whatever.

I'm not asking for such a rule to be passed, just so much as asking, if someone asks a mod to add an 'RO' to a thread title, whether that can be expected to be granted?

[Covered_In_Bees!]

What, may I ask, is wrong with RO? Isn't that what The Pit is for, to get out your frustrations and angers with the real world? As a secondary reason of course to Pitting other members, so the flamewars don't impede and a good discussion elsewhere.

[Sage Rat]

What, may I ask, is wrong with RO?
What's wrong with TMI or NSFW threads?

[Covered_In_Bees!]

The problem with NSFW threads should be obvious.

Nothing wrong with TMI, IMHO. People should be able to tell from a thread's subject line that there stands a possibility of there being Too Much Information shared about certain subjects and or people.

Same goes for RO. Why do they need to be labeled at all? NSFW threads can get people into trouble, everything else is just someone's sensibilities being a little too delicate. Nothing skipping over certain posts or a whole thread won't fix.

[Sage Rat]

Nothing wrong with TMI, IMHO. People should be able to tell from a thread's subject line that there stands a possibility of there being Too Much Information shared about certain subjects and or people.

So why shouldn't people be able to be aware that a thread will contain RO?

[Revtim]

There's already a rule that the thread title must be usefully descriptive, IMHO if that is followed then it's obvious if it's RO or not.

[Spoons]

Same goes for RO. Why do they need to be labeled at all?There's already a rule that the thread title must be usefully descriptive, IMHO if that is followed then it's obvious if it's RO or not.As I recall things, Covered_in_Bees, the problem with RO thread titles some years back was that they weren't immediately obvious as RO threads. Titles like "This just pisses me off" were quite common but gave no indication whether the poster was posting about an annoying co-worker or family situation (personal, not RO) or a news story involving somebody across the country who likes to drown puppies (impersonal, RO). Following the rule cited by Revtim means that thread titles are more descriptive, so there is less need for the RO label.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Pit isn't the place for RO threads, just that they try to be more descriptive in their titles; and if that isn't possible for whatever reason, that they use the RO label.

[Colibri]

What's wrong with TMI or NSFW threads?

There's no rule about including TMI in thread titles. Neither is there a rule about labeling threads as being NSFW; the rule applies to links, not thread titles.

I'm not modding the Pit, and this is just my personal opinion. I think the whole "RO" kerfuffle was overblown. I don't see any more reason to have even a quasi-rule about putting RO in thread titles than to have one requiring them to be labeled "Lame" or "Long."

I think the rule about having descriptive thread titles covers any of these situations adequately. Having a rule about labeling them according to some subjective criterion seems like overkill.

[Sage Rat]

There's no rule about including TMI in thread titles. Neither is there a rule about labeling threads as being NSFW; the rule applies to links, not thread titles.
When did I suggest a rule?

[Colibri]

When did I suggest a rule?

Well, you did say a quasi-rule (whatever that is).

Again, I am not speaking for the Pit mods. However, having to mouseover, or if you forget to do that, inadvertently read the first post of an RO thread when you dislike such threads, is such a minor annoyance that I personally would not be inclined to add RO to the title on the basis of a report. And RO can also be somewhat subjective.

Now, if what you are really concerned about is having to be exposed to some really disturbing atrocity (as are the subject of two current Pit threads with "RO" in the title), I can see your point a bit more. One of the two RO threads has a title that clearly indicates its subject, while the other does not. I think the real issue here is the lack of a clear thread title, not whether or not it is RO. (And RO threads vary in the degree of their outrageousness; some deal with relatively trivial annoyances, others with sickening crimes.) If this is the problem, the best solution is to ask a moderator to clarify the title to indicate the subject better.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Now, if what you are really concerned about is having to be exposed to some really disturbing atrocity (as are the subject of two current Pit threads with "RO" in the title), I can see your point a bit more.. . . If this is the problem, the best solution is to ask a moderator to clarify the title to indicate the subject better.
But in order to know whether the title needs to be improved, wouldn't you have to read it? That would seem to negate the whole process since one can't un-read something.

If the thread starter used the RO label in the title, that would solve the problem before there was one. I think I've seen definitions of RO as links to articles or rants about people that the OP does not know. That may not cover all of it, but it might cover most of it.

[DSYoungEsq]

What, if I may be so bold as to ask, is the huge problem with inadvertently opening up a recreational outrage thread in Teh Pit? I mean, really. Get real, get perspective. :rolleyes:

[Covered_In_Bees!]

What, if I may be so bold as to ask, is the huge problem with inadvertently opening up a recreational outrage thread in Teh Pit? I mean, really. Get real, get perspective. :rolleyes:

Copy cat! I asked that, somewhat differently, in the very second post. Look where we are now. :p

[Sage Rat]

Now, if what you are really concerned about is having to be exposed to some really disturbing atrocity (as are the subject of two current Pit threads with "RO" in the title), I can see your point a bit more.
I don't read the Pit at all for the most part. I simply noticed that people who were disinterested in RO were happiest in the time right after people started labeling their threads as RO.

If a solution works to make everyone happy, it seems worthwhile to point out when the solution has ceased being used. I noticed that the former had happened, and so I am doing the latter.

Since I'm neither a moderator nor a Pit denizen, it doesn't matter to me if this suggestion is heeded. But it does seem silly to have a second Anti-RO Outrage (AROO) flamefest occur, if it can be cut off before even beginning.

[Bryan Ekers]

What, if I may be so bold as to ask, is the huge problem with inadvertently opening up a recreational outrage thread in Teh Pit? I mean, really. Get real, get perspective. :rolleyes:

You might get, yknow, outraged or something.

Recreationally.

[Colibri]

But in order to know whether the title needs to be improved, wouldn't you have to read it? That would seem to negate the whole process since one can't un-read something.

Of course. The thing is, we already have a rule (or at least, etiquette) about requesting people provide descriptive thread titles. Posters regularly ignore this,
and post really obscure titles.

It already is a convention (if not a rule) that people include "RO" in thread titles if the OP involves RO. Some people ignore this, just as they do the rule about providing descriptive thread titles.

If people ignore the rule about descriptive thread titles, of course there are some that will ignore the convention about providing RO in titles as well.

[Colibri]

If a solution works to make everyone happy, it seems worthwhile to point out when the solution has ceased being used. I noticed that the former had happened, and so I am doing the latter.

I disagree that the "solution has ceased being used." There are currently two active RO threads in the Pit, both of which were labeled RO by the OP.

Since I'm neither a moderator nor a Pit denizen, it doesn't matter to me if this suggestion is heeded. But it does seem silly to have a second Anti-RO Outrage (AROO) flamefest occur, if it can be cut off before even beginning.

Seems like what you have is a solution in search of a problem. ;)

[C K Dexter Haven]

I think that labeling something as RO requires enough maturity and self-awareness to see it as RO. Kind of like TMI: some people just not as aware, or as sensitive to the perspective of other readers'.

Yes, it would certainly be helpful if people would be descriptive in thread titles. No, it's not a capital crime if they're not; someone reports it and a mod changes it, and we ask the person to please be more descriptive in the future. No, we're not going to set standards or labels for thread titles... although that would probably make a great game for the Game Room, to come up with a list of requirements for thread titles.

[Sage Rat]

someone reports it and a mod changes it, and we ask the person to please be more descriptive in the future
Whether this is so is all I asked.

[Gfactor]

I'm not asking for such a rule to be passed, just so much as asking, if someone asks a mod to add an 'RO' to a thread title, whether that can be expected to be granted?

Yes.

[FXMastermind]

NSFW threads can get people into trouble, everything else is just someone's sensibilities being a little too delicate. Nothing skipping over certain posts or a whole thread won't fix.

If only that were true.

[Colibri]

If only that were true.

If you have a complaint or comment about this message board, please open a new thread making the subject clear, rather than bumping an old thread with a cryptic remark.

This is closed.