# Clarification on the thread rules in the MPSIMS Manchester thread **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 24, 2017, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-on-the-thread-rules-in-the-mpsims-manchester-thread/787339 "2017-05-24T13:05:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-on-the-thread-rules-in-the-mpsims-manchester-thread/787339/1 "2017-05-24T13:05:55Z")
**IvoryTowerDenizen** laid down some discussion limits in the [MPSIMS thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=826852) that discusses the Manchester bombing. I have a question about those rules, which I am bringing here in an effort to not derail the thread with meta-thread questions and not inadvertently flout a thread rule while asking questions intended to determining what the rules are. Specifically, after asking if recent news developments meant that earlier thread rules had changed, the reply was: > [@Explosions at Manchester Arena (England)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explosions-at-manchester-arena-england/787243/174): > > Your question is vague and I’m not sure how it relates to the quoted post. However, I suggest you review post #56 for guidance. If you have additional questions ask them, but try to be more specific. Here’s what I wanted to ask: The guidance in post 56 is relatively clear to me. However, you offered up additional guidance in this post: > [@Explosions at Manchester Arena (England)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explosions-at-manchester-arena-england/787243/92): > > This is a warning for failure to follow moderator’s instructions. Discussions about muslim terrorism in general, in a breaking news thread in which the terrorists have not been identified, is against the rules of this thread. It now seems the terrorists have been identified. I’m asking how, if at all, that fact changes the statement that discussions about Muslim terrorism in general is against the rules of this thread. Is it still off-limits, even though the terrorists have been identified? It’s not clear to me what the boundaries are now vis-a-vis discussions of Islam as it relates to this specific attack, since there is now at least somewhat strong evidence that the Manchester bombing was related to the attacker’s peculiar vision of what Islam teaches. In other shorter words: a poster in that thread got a warning. The warning text said, “Discussions about muslim [sic] terrorism in general, in a breaking news thread in which the terrorists have not been identified, is against the rules of this thread.” But now the attacker has been identified, and there is evidence of a connection to Islamic beliefs that may have motivated the act. How, if at all, does this news development change the rules guidance in the thread? ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-on-the-thread-rules-in-the-mpsims-manchester-thread/787339/2 "2017-05-24T13:16:13Z")
The issue was that in the Manchester Bombing breaking news thread, _assuming_ Muslim terrorism and then making religious jabs, is off the table. Discussing the facts of the case, even as new information appears, is fine. This is not new- in most breaking news threads, (including terrorism, gun violence, allegations of LEO abuses etc), we ask posters to keep to the facts and relevant speculation, without taking jabs, swipes, making derogatory remarks based on _assumptions_ of what happened or dragging in larger political issues. Of course, as always, context will drive individual moderation guidance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-on-the-thread-rules-in-the-mpsims-manchester-thread/787339/3 "2017-05-24T14:03:53Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > The issue was that in the Manchester Bombing breaking news thread, _assuming_ Muslim terrorism and then making religious jabs, is off the table. > > Discussing the facts of the case, even as new information appears, is fine. > > This is not new- in most breaking news threads, (including terrorism, gun violence, allegations of LEO abuses etc), we ask posters to keep to the facts and relevant speculation, without taking jabs, swipes, making derogatory remarks based on _assumptions_ of what happened or dragging in larger political issues. > > Of course, as always, context will drive individual moderation guidance. This certainly makes sense. But . . . I can’t help but think that “relevant speculation,” given the past fifteen or twenty years, should not exclude the discussion of Islamic-grounded (or more accurately, faux-Islamic-grounded) motivations. In other words, it’s kinda willfully blind, in my opinion, to say that today, when news like this breaks, we think that it’s equally likely that the perpetrators were IRA bombers, devotees of Timothy McVeigh, neo Nazis, or faux-Islamic followers. I think it’s appropriate to avoid tarring an entire religion with the twisted views of a tiny minority of people, to be sure, but I don’t think it’s off base to accept that a breaking news story about a suicide vest bomber is more likely to be one of the faux-Islamic actors than a disaffected Sinn Féin member. And this may not contradict what you’re saying, but I wasn’t sure. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-on-the-thread-rules-in-the-mpsims-manchester-thread/787339/4 "2017-05-24T14:15:19Z")
First, there is a world of difference between informed speculation and the types of comments I moderated. Second, depending on the context, too much speculation might veer into GD territory. Again context is key. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-on-the-thread-rules-in-the-mpsims-manchester-thread/787339/5 "2017-05-24T16:17:38Z")
For the record, if someone in that thread (before the culprit had been identified) had said something like “That damn IRA, claiming that they’re peaceful! When will the UK come to its senses, and ban all Catholics from the country?”, that remark would have similarly been moderated.