I don't think threads should be censored

I don’t think threads should be censored. In the Charlie Foxtrot thread, there are instances like this:


This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.

Most of us are relatively mature adults who don’t need to be ‘protected’. If a poster egregiously violates the rules, suspend him or ban him. Don’t censor him.

And exactly how should the mods (among who, IIUC, there is no one with the correct level of authority) change, what appears to be, a software setting (that might not even be tweak-able)?

Link to the Charlie Foxtrot thread, please?

I’m guessing it’s a cleaned up version of something else with initials CF. Took me a while to work out.

Then why didn’t he say Trump Clusterfuck thread? He censored his own OP.

Because I do not like to use the ‘F-word’ if I don’t need to.

I don’t spend much time in threads that end up auto-closed for a few hours. I understand the reasoning behind it, but could probably go either way with it. However, I do see a potential downside. Often times people report a thread/post and it can take a day before a mod addresses it. Sometimes, it’s never addressed (for any number of reasons). Often times, at least for me, sometimes it feels like the reports are falling on deaf ears, even when I know that’s not the case. Now, with some level of autonomous modding, people may start flagging a lot more posts since there’s a quick feedback loop. People get [closer to] instant results.

Look at it like this. If I go into a thread and see something I think needs to be dealt with by a mod, there’s a good chance I’m not going to report it on the assumption that someone else already did or if no one did, maybe I’m misreading the post or the circumstances surrounding it. With the new system, I can go into a thread, see someone that’s a ‘known’ troll or pushing the ‘don’t be a jerk’ boundary or arguing in bad faith and I can report it, knowing that if enough other people also do that, it’ll shut down the thread.
When I was thinking about this a few days ago, it dawned on me that people could end up using that as a (really bad) debate method. The same way people can flounce, they can report a few posts, hope enough others do the same and the thread gets shut down for a few hours. Everyone comes back with cooler heads and some don’t return at all.

I kinda like the system, lock down a thread until a mod can make a decision but it does have the big downside of people being able to use it against another poster. The few workarounds I can think of could make things better or worse.
Even something as similar as (I’m not saying this is possible with the software) having the flag icon be lit up if someone reported the post could help so that a dozen other people don’t also do it, OTOH, it could also create pile-ons.

I think this thread is more like an ATMB thread, eh? The feedback thread was for the purposes of evaluating the new layout, system, user experience, functionality, etc, right?

That nitpick aside, I usually don’t agree with thread locks or closures either, but this was appropriate. No animosity toward pool, but he reminded me of, well, me when I’ve been alone and bored on a Saturday night and been under the influence of boozie woozie.

But you need to if you want people to know what thread you’re talking about instead of making people guess. Most of us are relatively mature adults who don’t need to be ‘protected’.

I agree with that. Not that this is some huge problem on the board, but that thread title was too cryptic for me.
What I see more often is people vaguely referencing another thread without realizing that rest of us don’t know what they’re talking about. Going to ATMB to complain about ‘the lack of moderation in that train wreck of a thread’ or ‘can we talk about all the misogyny in the most recent trump/biden thread’ (both of these totally made up). With the latter, you might go looking for the most recent trump/biden thread, but if it’s IMHO and called ‘Latest poll numbers looking bad for the middle class’…you’re not going to find it.

I don’t think most people are doing it on purpose, but it would be helpful if people would either link to the thread (or use the correct title or otherwise make it easier to fine) when it’s something we need to look at in order to discuss it.

Yeah, I sometimes don’t link to the thread if I don’t want the linking label to appear over in the other thread, but I’ll make sure to write out the actual title (and forum if I remember to).

When I see a thread that’s been autoclosed like that one because it has too many flags I reopen it - as I did in that case. (There may be other circumstances in which I might leave a thread closed.)

And yet here you needed to. Your logic is not mentioning fuck in a thread about censoring that very word is utterly mind-boggling. You’ve turned us all into children. Please don’t do that to us ever again.

I forgot that’s a thing now, but the problem isn’t anything new. I assume there’s an easy enough way to break the link. A few well placed spaces or random characters in the URL would prevent it, I’d guess.

I’m sorry. I overestimated the knowledge of some members.

Now, that’s not fair, Johnny_L. A. Knowing what Charlie Foxtrot means doesn’t necessarily translate to “Clusterfuck”(a single word). And don’t forget this is a very literal crowd.

If there is another definition for Charlie Foxtrot, I am not aware of it. It’s as well-known as SNAFU.

Sure, C & F. Two words.

If you intended “Charlie Foxtrot” to be an obvious reference to the thread you were talking about, I rather think you overestimated your own ability to communicate. This is not an army barracks. It may be common military slang, but not elsewhere.