What Exit’s moderation improves the Ukraine thread
What Exit’s moderation degrades the Ukraine thread
0voters
I don’t understand What Exit’s obsession with hijacks in the Ukraine war thread. I am perfectly capable of scrolling past digressions and meanders that don’t interest me. They are far less intrusive and distracting than incessant harping and mod-noting, punctuated by unnecessary thread closures. This isn’t the way we managed breaking news threads for twenty years, and it is not an improvement.
The pair of Breaking News threads are being kept as news aggregate threads. Non-news related conjecture and what-ifs leads to the actual news being buried. This is what I’ve been trying to clean.
I guess I don’t understand “hijack” or “breaking news thread.”
My doubts are in this area. Donald Trump winning in 2024 is a realistic outcome. That would take the US out of the picture and leave Ukraine to rely on Europe and maybe South Korea.
This gets “almost a warning?” At most it deserved a “let’s stay on topic.” Although, to be honest, it was pretty on-topic. I cannot imagine what terrible outcome is feared by letting such a post go unmoderated. Are we to limit our “discussion” to what has already happened, and avoid talking about what might happen in the future?
Trump is a political virus that infects everything, including any thread where he gets even a side-mention. That thread then becomes a thread about Trump, which is not breaking news, but politics and speculation about the future.
The only way to prevent Trump from infesting the breaking news thread on the Ukraine war is by removing him entirely from the breaking news thread, unless or until he actually pops up in the news about the Ukraine thread.
If people want to discuss the implications for the Ukraine war of Trump getting re-elected, which strikes me as a valid concern, please start a thread about it in P&E.
Fully agree with @What_Exit ’s moderation of that post.
Think of it this way. There are as mentioned 200 other threads on the Invasion. Also, everyone is welcomed and encourage to start a new one, if none of those fit. So why begrudge those of us that want a pure news thread, one news thread?
As far as the OP goes, I find it funny that the moderation is “heavy-handed” when I have largely avoided handing out warnings in those threads. I’ve tried to go as lightly as possible while keeping the thread on topic and off speculation.
Note: I did hand out 1 warning for a very problematic poster that was trolling the thread and had racked up a bunch of modnotes in other threads over a long weekend.
You know, if I wanted to start a thread, I would have started a thread.
What I did was make a post and then a follow-up comment. Now I have my own thread and a whole bunch of alerts telling me I have to respond to it. I’m not going to, because I don’t want to - but now I’m going to feel bad about it. This does not make me happy.
I’m not sure what is going on with the thread. I posted something about an attack in Crimea and it got shut down some time after that. I also posted something about the US putting nuclear sensors in Ukraine which seemed relevant to the topic. I don’t know why it was shut down or what is going on.
For the record, I voted yes in that W_E’s moderation improves the thread.
So IMHO, the advantage of a breaking news thread is that I can get an aggregate of what is going on, often with commentary by people who are much better at identifying what is/isn’t being so heavily massaged as to being useless, and some short-term speculation on what it means to the immediate situation.
Each time people turn to what may/may not happen in the long term, it muddies what is immediately going on, and turns what I’m looking for (facts as much as possible) into crystal ball gazing.
Not that the crystal ball gazing is valueless, heck I started one of the threads that W_E moved comments to, but that was for a specific sub-set of the war that I wanted to focus on.
And that leaves out that keeping the hijacks and sidetracks down also minimizes the endless debates about how each side may/may not (at least prior to some posters being thankfully banned from the thread) justifications and excuses for actions being taken by certain sides.
Again, these are all fine points, but not IMHO (and that of W_E and many other posters) what this thread is for.
I have made plenty of threads that I don’t necessarily respond to in a timely fashion. Often things in the BBQ Pit, like a monthly mini-rant thread, or the last time the troll thread got ruined by a few people bickering and stopped being about trolls. Even if you’re the first poster in a thread, you shouldn’t feel responsible for it. And as said before, it’s easy to change notifications for a thread you create (or are at least the OP for); I always do for every thread I’ve ever created because I don’t need the spam.
Though I do think a person who starts a thread should answer requests for clarification on the point of the OP and/or the idea for making the thread. (Though unfortunately they often don’t.)
The one thing that might frustrate me if I were in your position would be if people mistakenly thought I created the thread, and started asking me questions about that. When my OP was initially just a reply in another thread, where context might now be lost. I do see that WE put a mod note to try to explain the situation so there was an effort to avoid that confusion.
Good point. I just added a staff note to the first post that might help a little. It would be nice if the software added a spin-off or split message to the new thread. It just does it in the old thread.
I do bet most politicians would LOOOOOVE to be able to show a 73% approval rating on their performance!
(that’s where the polls stands today 5/1/2023, and I know that it’s a poll for a particular thread, not over every single little thing, but the point stands)