And I’m telling you it isn’t. Take it to the Pit or drop it now. This is not the Pit lite, and off-topic criticisms of other posters are not welcome.
Funny thing is, if the thread hadn’t been closed, and this thread opened in response, I probably would never have known that there was a Kickstarter for a documentary on James Randi. And there wouldn’t be this thread full of keywords like “Kickstarter” “documentary” and “James Randi” for Google to index.
I’ll bet this thread has already generated more replies and more page views than that “Kickstarter for a documentary on James Randi” thread ever would have, and fewer people would even know that there’s a documentary about James Randi, titled An Honest Liar: The Amazing Randi Story, in the works.
Better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, indeed. 
And we don’t have a problem with you finding out about it. We ask that people contact us and ask for permission before starting threads about funding efforts like this one. (At least unless we decide on different rules for threads about crowdsourcing.)
You do. You can close the thread after the fact, which is how you’ve moderated practically every other thread for the last, what, 10 years?
Requiring permission for something that’s already been acknowledged to not only have not been clear, but conceded as likely having received approval is silly.
No it wasn’t. It was a thread about a movie that’s on Kickstarter.
She didn’t close anything, and twickster’s decision was consistent with how we’ve handled comparable threads in the past. There are some ways in which crowdsourcing-related threads are different, which is why we’re discussing the possibility of moderating them in a different way.
I’m not sure that’s even a distinction, but if it is, it’s a pointless one. I will let you know how the mod discussion is resolved.
For the record, I was curious, not accusatory. I should have expected TUS to complain about anything the mods do, though.
Oh, I know, but I couldn’t resist pointing out the irony. I bet James Randi himself would get a kick out of it!
I’m all for mods having the discretion to use their judgement while performing their modly duties. That said, IMO, the proper judgement in this case would have been to leave that thread alone. If you guys really want to screen and have to approve all threads like that one, no sweat off my back, it just seems so unnecessary.
Had it been a new user posting a drive-by, or someone obviously pimping their own project, I could see the justification. But there have been so many threads equivalent to this one that haven’t been censored and locked, it seems like an overreaction.
Then, when you consider that James Randi is an ally in the fight against ignorance, the censoring of such a naturally cromulent thread seems way over the top. There are probably a lot of regulars here who are/would be interested in that thread, and that fact alone should be sufficient justification for leaving it be.
All IMHO, of course.
I wasn’t trying to revisit an old decision, I’ve never seen a decision on that. I was just seeking reassurance that it is OK, since I’ve seen it happen, and it didn’t occur to me until this thread that it might even be close to the line. I just wanted to find out for certain that it was on the good side of the line. 
No problem. I do want to make it clear that we’re discussing how to handle Kickstarter/IndieGogo threads because of the fundraising issue, not revisiting all our policies on linking or recommendations about websites and things like that.
I definitely appreciate y’all having that discussion. I can see why the call was made the way it was made, but I think the closed thread is a great example of why that rule needs tweaking: closing that thread diminished, rather than improved, the board, and if there’s a tweak to the rule that will allow such threads to go forth even if the poster in question forgets to PM y’all.
That depends on what the sanctions are vs sanctions for asking permission, not receiving it, and then doing it anyway.
Is there any project - be it game, movie, whatever - on Kickstarter that the mods would NOT approve if permission was requested? If the answer is no, why require permission?
If somebody is promoting their own Kickstarter and this is deemed inappropriate, close that thread.
If somebody is opening a thread solely to solicit funding for a Kickstarter, close that thread.
If somebody is just talking about a project that happens to be on kickstarter, who does that hurt?
We approve most requests of this type. But people are creative and we would rather see the requests first instead of watching someone post something inappropriate and then having to deal with complaints about why we didn’t stop it.
I get where you’re coming from, but honestly as a poster I’d prefer just the opposite: I’d prefer that people are given wide latitude, and that moderators similarly have wide latitude to stop things that harm the messageboard. There will always be people who want exact rules, but I think they don’t understand what makes for a good board, and may safely be dismissed. Focus on the end goal–a good messageboard–and mod accordingly.
This. (which was worded much more succinctly than my previous post)
The problem is that people want to know ahead of time what they can do and what they can’t, or how they can get permission to do something without breaking the rules. I think posters and mods do have pretty wide latitude, but simply asserting “we have wide latitude to stop things that harm the message board” doesn’t satisfy people when they want the rules explained or what they can expect from the mods.
That’s what we’re doing.
By closing a thread no one wanted closed?
And how was this fact determined? Was there a poll in IMHO I missed?
Have you not actually read any of this thread?
Yep. Got an answer to my question?