I noticed in MPSIMS the post about missiles fired into Syria http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823420 it quickly became a political thread about the buffoon in chief, Trump and Putin totally had a previous agreement to create a bullshit sideshow.
There are others. I reported three of them. I get tired of reading pure insults. If I want that I go into the pit.
Another thing, this ties into Bricker’s complaint about no moderation for the liberal biased posts.
I can speak for myself that I was tied up with family stuff Friday/yesterday and didn’t act on those reports. Those should and do get moderated, all the time. I’m sorry a few slipped.
I personally have given so many warnings and mod-notes for anti-Trump comments over the last few months, that the idea that those get a pass for liberal bias is amazing. Here’s a handful: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20124601&postcount=59
You were saying?
It makes it harder to mod when the topic is about politics or related to political or presidential things in itself, though.
Say the topic was “What kind of chips do you like?” and someone gave the answer “I don’t like chips, but I LOVE CHEETOS, much like our dork-in-chief is right now”. That would be a clear political jab, now. It would be out of place, not on topic, and existing to do nothing but insult a political figure.
Now regarding the topic you linked to…the one about Syria, it becomes a bit more grey instead of black and white. It’s a news story based heavily around a decision that the president made and that involved other countries, so–speaking only for myself–I let slide criticism for the president a bit more in those threads because, IMO, it’s not completely off topic. People should have the right to voice whether or not they agree or disagree, strongly, with the current actions taken, I believe…and reading that thread and the two posts you reported the other day, I didn’t see anything that needed to be modded offhand, just yet, personally. Let’s use this post as an example. I don’t see anything in that post that needs to be modded, myself. I see it as discussing the issue at hand, which may have some disparaging opinions.
Another mod of the same forum may disagree and mod the same posts, however, I only speak for myself.
That’s not what the sticky at the top of the forum says.
Perhaps the wording of the sticky should be changed from “will” to “may be” and the word “strictly” should be dropped altogether.
[QUOTE=sticky]
Unfortunately, since these types of threads commonly involve hot-button issues, they often fall prey to hijacks and rants about political, religious or other emotionally charged subjects. MPSIMS is not the place for such comments, which detract from the usefulness of breaking-news threads.
[/QUOTE]
So are your arguing that the posts in question were hijacks or rants and thus required moderation? There is a distinction between on-topic critical comments, comments that are only jabs/rants, or comments that are somewhat tangentially related but detract from the conversation. Those may not require moderation.
Finally, if the gold standard is that not a single post that needs moderation ever gets missed in order to say we have tight standards on things, well, you’re not going to get that with an all volunteer squad and it seems pretty unreasonable.
Some of the posts were nothing more than rants, and, according to the OP, they were reported.
Then the issue is you felt they were rants and the mod on the scene felt they weren’t. They weren’t being “not moderated” based on the sticky, but it’s a difference of opinion between you and the moderation that was done.
Disagreeing with the judgement call is your prerogative of course, but it’s quite different than saying we should rewrite the sticky because we’re not doing the job.
Well back to my original question, when is a breaking story no longer breaking news and political, hot button or controversial subjects may be introduced?
So “sideshow bullshit” and “ignorant buffoon” aren’t political jabs, in your view?
And that’s just in the first eight posts, well within the “breaking news” guideline.
As I said, I didn’t review those reports and am just referring to what the moderator who did, said.
I am simply framing the question and have offered no opinion one way or another.
There’s not really any set time, but as I said in my last post…it’s my opinion that that post was already “political” from the start. It was about a happening based on a decision by a political figure. There is no way political talk is not going to be involved in some way, and probably even talk where people are disagreeing with the political choices having been made. “We’re shooting missiles at Syria” is a topic where Trump’s name coming up is inevitable and, IMO, expected…as is discussion of any of the following: Whether it should have been done or not, what might come of it, what might have lead up to it, etc…
…all things that are also heavily political in discussion.
Again, I just didn’t see anything that needed to be modded, personally,…but that’s just me. Another mod of that forum may disagree and may choose to mod posts in there. That’s why we have more than one mod in every forum, for other eyes and opinions and POV.
Let’s set the record straight here. Political jabs at the president or any other public figure are not against the rules in MPSIMS. Not in the way that they are in GQ. As long as it’s not an attempt to derail the thread it is generally allowed. The clarification that was put in MPSIMS a little while ago basically said that when there is a breaking news thread the current rules about hijacking a thread will be more strictly enforced. The problem was that if there was a shooting somewhere a certain number of posters couldn’t wait to turn it into a gun control debate. A terrorist attack would devote into a debate on Islam in three posts. Sometimes people just want to get information. I personally would moderate the OP “US launched cruise missiles at Syria, here’s the latest info” differently than “Look at what the idiot in DC just did.” Of course that OP might best be suited in the Pit but if it is written in a MPSIMy way the OP has already made it political so further political comments by others would not be a hijack. In the case of the thread quoted in post 1 the OP made it about Trump’s political strategy from the very beginning. The thread was not looking for breaking news updates about an unfolding situation. The thread was about politics and strategic implications from the beginning. In other words it wasn’t a breaking news thread in the sense of what the sticky is talking about.
Although if the thread has started to die a natural death I would be less likely to mod a change in direction, I think it would be better to open your own thread rather than try move the thread in the direction you want it to go in.
ETA: and that has the added benefit of making it unnecessary to wait for the original thread to die down. There is nothing wrong with having more than one thread on an issue or incident looking at it from different angles.
As the author of the example post, I own that I was not aware of the standards that D’Anconia pointed out from the sticky for the MPSIMS forum, and had I been aware I would not have posted those comments there. My intent was entirely to disparage not only the decision to attack but also the person who decided. It was a post that would have been better suited to a thread either in the Pit or perhaps in Great Debates.
I appreciate that this is a grey area as you explained, and that my post was probably not flamingly inappropriate, but it is too close to being over the line for my personal comfort, now that I have a better understanding of what the rules are.
Does a topic on the President of the USA hitting Syria with cruise missiles really belong in MPSIMS? I mean, honestly, does it fit the description of mundane pointless stuff I must share? I’m not blaming the OP, I myself often wonder where to put breaking news stories of considerable importance. They end up in MPSIMS only because there’s nowhere else to put them but they’re certainly not a happy fit there.
MPSIMS, despite its name, often ends up with stuff that is neither mundane nor pointless. GQ is also a lot less general than the forum name implies.
While some of the forum names might confuse newbies a bit, folks who have been around for a while know what each forum is for, and they’ll know when something in MPSIMS isn’t mundane or pointless.
No biggie. Don’t sweat the forum names.
I see your point. While I’ve been here long enough to know what goes where it always seemed a little odd that important stuff should go in MPSIMS. But as you say, that which we call a rose, etc, so no worries.
While we are at it, shouldn’t “General Questions” be “Specific Questions?”
Factual Questions would be more descriptive.