I posted a thread in ATMB just over a week ago questioning a thread-specific rule. It was closed, apparently due to a misunderstanding of my complaint. This is despite me reporting a post that was trying to hijack the thread with the debate the mods assumed I wanted. (Apologies for the vagueness, but I don’t want be accused of trying to reopen the discussion here. I can post further details if the mods wish)
When I appealed the closure with the mod that closed the thread they still misunderstood my intent and I was told that I “don’t get to argue the point endlessly” despite the thread only being open for 4 hrs with a whopping 12 posts. I tried appealing further, pointing out again that I did not want to debate what they thought I did, and offering to post a message to explain that, but this second message has been ignored, with no response in 9 days (the mod in question has been active in that time).
If a handful of posts and a few hours is too much discussion for ATMB, then what is the point of the forum. Just announce that from now on moderation cannot be discussed.
You appear to be missing the point. Your original complaint thread here was closed even though there were just 12 posts in it because roughly half those posts were explaining the reason for the moderation in the Gaza thread, and you just kept refusing to accept it. Of course you can argue moderation here, but if none of the mods agree with you, at some point you just need to accept it and move on.
They “explained” that the reason was to avoid moderating people that disagreed. I can see no explanation as to why that particular thread had a special rule rather than just moderating those that were disruptive. I also feel that members should be able to post their opinions on such rules. Indeed other posters were posting in the short window the thread was open.
But again, I’d rather not reopen the discussion here. We can discuss whether threads should be closed so quickly without going into the specifics of my complaint.
No, you are missing the point. Threads are constantly being closed in ATMB. Why? Why not simply allow threads to continue and they will eventually die a natural death. If I am no longer interested in a thread I simply quit reading new posts. Why can’t the mods here do the same? When they feel they have adequately answered the questions they could just stop participating in the thread. Instead they close it.
No, not at all. The point I was making is that if you object to a particular moderation action, and have it explained to you multiple times by multiple moderators why that action was taken, then the right thing to do is either clarify any misunderstanding if there is one, or just let it go.
Continuing to raise the exact same argument again and again because you can’t accept the decision is no longer “arguing moderation”, it’s just being unproductive and annoying. IANAM but my observation is that ATMB threads are generally closed when they go off-topic or generally become unproductive, like this one is threatening to do. If you want a more authoritative answer ask a mod.
I think the problem is fairly well explained. ATMB is the place for discussing moderation. The closed thread was discussing whether “genocide” is a correct word to use. ATMB is not the correct place for that discussion. You were invited to take that argument to GD. You are permitted to discuss the matter, but not in ATMB.
Because people keep creating threads that warrant closure. Most of the time when a thread is closed, it’s because it stopped being a thread that fits in ATMB, if it wasn’t closed for procedural reasons (like a ban announcement). The original thread that this thread is referencing is a perfect example. It stopped being a thread to talk about moderation (because the question was already answered) and it turned into a Great Debates thread talking about the definition of the word “genocide”.
Let’s look at the ATMB threads closed in the past year. Walking backward:
List of 30 thread closures
Closed because it turned into a debate about the definition of “genocide”.
Closed because it was a ban announcement, and discussion isn’t allowed for these, so a post is made then closed. Standard procedure.
Closed because the OP finally said, “Over and done.”
Closed because the OP said they were done with the thread.
Another ban announcement.
A topic ban announcement.
Closed because a mod fixed the issue brought up in the OP (a thread wasn’t reopened right away), and since it was fixed there was nothing to talk about.
Title changes thread that just gets appended to by mods, not an actual discussion thread.
Closed because it became extremely off-topic; it was temporarily closed, then reopened, then permanently closed when the thread continued to be off-topic.
Another thread that drifted off-topic.
Another ban announcement.
And another.
And another.
This was closed because after a very short discussion, it was announced that the subject of the thread had been banned, so it turned into a ban announcement.
Another one going off-topic (it turned into a bunch of people arguing about old disagreements).
Another one that went off-topic, again turning into a debate about the definition of words.
In this one, the OP made comments suggesting that they thought the mods were persecuting them, and they no longer trusted the mods, so it was closed because there was no way for the thread to continue to be productive.
In this one, it seems like there were legal issues with the topic, and the thread was closed because a mod was told it needs to be closed.
Another ban notice.
Another ban notice, but this one got to 30 posts before they realized they forgot to close it.
This is a weird one, because they closed it before rendering a decision on the subject, then it wasn’t reopened again. It almost looks to me like it was forgotten. This is the first thread where the closure seems questionable.
Another ban notice.
Closed because the OP seemed to be basically reopening a closed thread by trying to continue the original discussion in ATMB (so it wasn’t appropriate to open it here in the first place).
Closed because there were some privacy issues involved in the topic; the OP was even trying to be vague to not violate a person’s privacy, but it was determined too risky to have the discussion.
Another thread that drifted off-topic, it even devolved into offensive jokes before its closure.
Another one that drifted off-topic (debating trans issues).
Similar to one I mentioned before (the same OP in fact), where they were claiming persecution and the thread was closed because there was no way to have a productive discussion.
Another ban announcement.
Another debate drifting out of ATMB territory.
A redundant thread that was already covered by active threads in Site Feedback (talking about problems posting YouTube links).
So there you go. 30 closed threads in the past year. The majority of them were closed for procedural reasons, otherwise it was because the thread drifted off into non-ATMB territory.
I don’t see a problem at all. The threads were closed for very good reason. Out of all 30, I only sort of question one, because it might be a case where they forgot to reopen it (but it’s so old that it is moot by now anyway). And I suspect that a new thread was opened on the same subject in ATMB, which might be why the original wasn’t reopened.
You suspect correctly. The two closed threads immediately after this one – first a 30-day suspension and second a topic ban announcement – are tied to this one and indicate what the decision was.
That is not the point I was making. My question was “Why is this reasonable and non-trolling term banned” not “Is this term provably correct”. If the thread hadn’t been closed I could have clarified my position, as I did to the mod who closed the thread (which they’ve ignored).
You started debating the term Genocide in the last ATMB thread. That is not how ATMB works. ECG, The Mod in charge of ATMB explained that.
How are you somehow not getting this?
I’m not sure what your point was, but you were speaking from authority about what Genocide means and explaining it to another Moderator at that. That is not an About This Message Board topic.
I believe this part of the post from you is the main reason the thread got closed.
The moderator (Puzzlegal) that has patiently been Moderating the thread in question explained her reasoning and the rules.
Even here you are still making the argument that genocide is the correct term (“this reasonable…term”). I am sympathetic to your argument, but the mods have repeatedly said they don’t want to litigate the specific term in the Gaza thread. If there was some other argument you wanted to make that didn’t depend on the accuracy of the term “genocide”, you didn’t make it in the other ATMB thread and you aren’t making it here.
I vaguely remember the discussion from months ago, and I was sure there was some kind of follow-up, but that wasn’t reflected in the original thread and I didn’t feel like digging around enough to find it. I appreciate you doing so.
True, I probably shouldn’t have posted that, but it was in response to ParallelLines saying that there was debate on “whose exact definition would be used”, so I was countering that the situation has changed, and it’s no longer a case of “picking a definition”.
It doesn’t change the fact that no explanation was given why this thread has a special “banned term” rule, when any other thread would just have moderation telling people to take debates/hijacks elsewhere. It very much comes across as protection for those that are excusing these atrocities, ensuring that they don’t get moderated if they can’t control themselves.
Again, why is the term “Genocide” unreasonable, when it’s commonly accepted by experts in these matters? You don’t have to agree that it’s correct (although I obviously believe it is), but it’s not used as an exaggeration, or as trolling, or as anti-semitism. I’m not aware of any other non-slur word being banned anywhere on the board. I assume it’s not being banned as hate-speech as it is allowed elsewhere, so why is this thread so special that we can’t use it?
I don’t know what word you want me to use to describe a term that is evidence supported and applied by experts but not yet proven in law. In any other scenario that would be a reasonable/acceptable/cromulent term to use, even if others want to dispute it.
Thread bans for particular terms or topics are actually quite common. It’s not some “special” rule. In this case, as has been explained to you repeatedly, the word was banned from the thread because it kept being a problem for that particular thread.
This is enough. You need to let it go. If you open another thread on this topic, you will receive a formal warning.
