# Is this mod behavior acceptable \[editing titles with bias\]? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 20, 2010, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332 "2010-07-20T10:47:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/21 "2010-07-20T17:43:17Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And, anyways, the problem is that Tom, a Catholic, renamed the title into a strawman position, right? Nobody actually thinks that Tom would believe “RC=evil”, right? The bias would be in making people think how silly that sounds. And it would backfire immensely, based on what I know about the people here. If it were really saying RC=evil, it would be a pitting. You are really stretching. Of course, I am not going to assert that the RCC is evil, but I was not the OP; the title change reflects the thread, not my views. As to whether “RCC=evil” sounds silly–that was the exact position of multiple posters, in the thread. If you are asserting that they sounded silly, note that I have made no such assertion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/22 "2010-07-20T17:46:22Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > There are plenty of threads that veer off into tangential discussions of the topic, and that don’t have their titles altered or “clarified.” The change in direction was not an organic hijack, not a “veering,” it was the specific topic of the thread as soon as the the news article and its source was clarified. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/23 "2010-07-20T18:16:24Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > What’s your point? > > The topic was not whether or not the RCC intended to ordain women. The discussion regarding specific church law only made it into about a half dozen posts. I changed the title just after post #55 had been submitted. The topic of discussion for the previous 40 posts had been whether or not the RCC was evil. Nothing I did changed or steered the discussion. Most posts were on the subject matter. MACE calling the church a club and constantly defending that position was a distraction.That did take a few posts off theme. But most discussed the subject matter and were not calling the church evil. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/24 "2010-07-20T18:37:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The change in direction was not an organic hijack, not a “veering,” it was the specific topic of the thread as soon as the the news article and its source was clarified. I completely disagree. True, the _way_ in which the OP interpreted the issue of ordaining women and used it as a jumping-off point for criticism of the Church might not have been to your liking, but the fact is that the Church’s position on the ordination of women was the reason for the thread. It seems to me that when two particular actions—sex abuse and the ordination of women—are placed at the same level in the Catholic moral hierarchy, it is not unreasonable to address them together, especially when they have both been the subject of considerable recent debate. If there were _any_ need at all for altering the thread title, it seems to me that a much more reasonable change might have been something like: **Catholics thinking of ordaining women? [Ordaining women and child abuse now equivalent sins in RCC law. Ed.]** or perhaps: **Catholics thinking of ordaining women? [Accusation of RCC getting its priorities wrong. Ed.]** Your “RCC=Evil” editorializing was way over the top. I realize you’re unlikely to change your mind about the issue, and will no doubt continue to insist that your (very narrow) interpretation of the original title justified the change, but it just feels wrong and overbearing to me. And just another small addition to a long series of questionable judgment calls. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/25 "2010-07-20T19:19:31Z")
**mhendo** ’s notes seem on target to me. Title editing is something that the mods should be doing very carefuly, and this seems to be at least getting a toe over the line, overstating the OP. Editing the title to make it clear that the church was being criticized for child abuse, does make sense to me. Bringing out the e-word to simplify those criticisms? Not cool, **Tomndebb** ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/26 "2010-07-20T19:53:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Of course, I am not going to assert that the RCC is evil, but I was not the OP; the title change reflects the thread, not my views. > As to whether “RCC=evil” sounds silly–\*\*that was the exact position of multiple posters, in the thread. \*\* But the OP made no such assertion. Show me where **Hari Seldon** said the RCC is “evil” and I’ll cut you some slack, or is your policy to let highjackers rename the very thread they are highjacking? I can’t get on board with that. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/27 "2010-07-20T21:19:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The change in direction was not an organic hijack, not a “veering,” it was the specific topic of the thread as soon as the the news article and its source was clarified. Well, I’m certainly not seeing it that way. Before I knew this thread existed I thought your editing was way too biased. It shocked me a bit actually. And despite not sharing your views on several things, as a mod I do respect you. I’m surprised you are digging your heels in on this when you have been shown what a non-biased edit would look like. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/28 "2010-07-21T00:30:53Z")
I don’t see the need for an edit of the title to start with, and that edit was indeed biased. This action was not within the job description of moderators, as I understand them. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/29 "2010-07-21T02:31:55Z")
I as well was shocked that the title would be edited in that particular manner, to what, by, all purposes, seemed a sarcastic dismissal of the thread; it showed very poor form, I thought. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/30 "2010-07-21T02:33:27Z")
Oops. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/31 "2010-07-21T10:59:48Z")
I would be interested in hearing from other mods and admins on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/32 "2010-07-21T11:57:22Z")
> [@leander](#): > > I would be interested in hearing from other mods and admins on this issue. Editing thread titles _IS_ in fact something that mods do, when the title is unclear or misleading. I personally would probably have added a question mark [RCC=evil?] to imply there was some debate, but **Tom** felt there wasn’t debate actually going on: all the posts as of the editing time were agreeing with the equation. Mods are often called upon to clarify a thread title, and we usually do it by adding a parenthetical (or square bracket) remark, and often post in the thread explaining. ---
**Author:** ![EVIL\_COW\_PIE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@EVIL\_COW\_PIE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EVIL_COW_PIE)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/33 "2010-07-21T12:28:50Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Editing thread titles _IS_ in fact something that mods do, when the title is unclear or misleading. I personally would probably have added a question mark [RCC=evil?] to imply there was some debate, but **Tom** felt there wasn’t debate actually going on: all the posts as of the editing time were agreeing with the equation. > > Mods are often called upon to clarify a thread title, and we usually do it by adding a parenthetical (or square bracket) remark, and often post in the thread explaining. But he didn’t do that. He says upthread, “_Once it hit GD, the whole issue of ordaining women was pretty much abandoned, replaced by an ongoing discussion of whether or not the RCC was, in fact, evil_.” **Tom** ’s opinion of where the thread headed off into is irrelevant. He edited the OP. And his characterization of where he thought it might go was improper. If his excuse made any sense at all, every time a thread was hijacked a mod would need to come in and re-“square bracket” the thread title. This was wrong and you know it. This is circling the wagons BS. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/34 "2010-07-21T13:10:28Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > **Tom** felt there wasn’t debate actually going on: all the posts as of the editing time were agreeing with the equation. Yes, **Tom** is oversensitive when it comes to the church. He sees insult in places where it isn’t. If you actually read the thread, you’ll see that, despite what **Tom** says, not every post was claimiing “RCC=evil.” **Tom** should have recused himself from modding the thread rather than adding what amounts to anonymous snark. Or lacking the will to do that, he should’ve moved it to the pit. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/35 "2010-07-21T17:25:12Z")
\*\*Hari Seldon’s \*\* OP is to assert that the Catholic Church seems okay with pedophilia. The OP’s title is clearly rhetorical. The topic is not really about the Catholic Church considering ordaining women - that is Hari’s dig at the juxtaposition of the topics. Some editing of the title to the actual content of the thread is appropriate. The topic quickly veers and largely discusses the evilness of the RCC. Maybe he should have used Skald’s wording from post 9: **Catholics thinking of ordaining women? [i.e. the Roman Catholic Church’s priorities are fucked up. Ed.]** Would that have been a less biased change? That’s probably a more accurate description of the content. It includes the “RCC = evil” posts, but also the ones discussing whether RCC not ordaining women is equivalent to RCC being sexist like the KKK is racist or not. And the ones about how serious Catholics actually take the RCC position on birth control and divorce and such. But it wouldn’t cover the posts discussing whether the RCC is just like a club or is something more influential/significant. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/36 "2010-07-21T21:08:52Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > \*\*Hari Seldon’s \*\* OP is to assert that the Catholic Church seems okay with pedophilia. No, it wasn’t. His OP was to discuss the _New York Times_ editorial. He clarified that in post 11 with the link to… _The New York Times_. Did you read the link? Here’s the first paragraph: > [@The Fucking New York Times Editorial That You Didn't Read](#): > > There was not much to like in the Vatican’s news conference this week about its pedophilia scandal, but among all the defensive posturing and inept statements, there was one real stunner: The citing of the movement for the ordination of women as a “grave crime” that Rome deems as offensive as the scandal of priests who sexually assault children. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/37 "2010-07-21T21:34:33Z")
Dude, forget the link, the link isn’t what I’m citing. I’m citing **Hari Seldon** ’s Fucking Post. > [@](#): > > My first reaction to the news that ordination of female priests is just as bad as pedophilia was\*\* that since they seem okay with the latter\*\*, maybe they are considering the former. Bold, underline, and red added for fucking emphasis. See, Hari just stated that the Catholic church seems to be okay with pedophilia. Now maybe Hari was just being rhetorical, but he did make that assertion, if only for effect. By the way, that Fucking New York Times article quote you provide characterizes the Church’s position on the pedophilia scandal as “defensive posturing and inept statements”. They don’t particularly think the RCC is doing much about pedophilia, either. Okay, maybe I should have said “asserted” instead of “is to assert”. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/38 "2010-07-21T21:48:03Z")
> [@A Monkey With a Gun](#): > > No, it wasn’t. His OP was to discuss the _New York Times_ editorial. Factually incorrect. Did you read the OP? It was simply a one-off dig at the church that he posted in MPSIMS. > [@A Monkey With a Gun](#): > > He clarified that in post 11 with the link to… Did you read Post #11? He was not “clarifying” a position or a debate, he simply noted a source for the information on which he riffed in the OP. I had no problem with the debate (such as it was) or with the topic. Heck, lots of Catholics are upset about the odd juxtaposition of the two announcements. I simply noted that as the thread wore on, there was no actual discussion of ordaining women while there was debate over whether the church was behaving in a bad way. With the limits on title sizes, I noted that the original title was no longer in play and noted the current discussion. I used “RCC=evil”, NOT claiming that that was the only position in the thread, but that no one had actually paid much attention to the ordination of women (the original title) and everyone was debating the quality of the RCC from posts 9 through 54. From Post #9 onward, there are multiple posts talking about how the RCC is bad, and a handful of posts discussing the technical aspects of the announcement that triggered the the discussion, and a more lengthy discussion regarding whether the RCC should be considered to be in violation of some rule or another, with multiple posters taking the position that it was violating various rules of rightness because the position was bad or the church was bad and one poster taking a position, (on roughly U.S. Constitutional grounds), that the RCC could run their organization the way they wanted to. Given that no one was actually addressing the specific announcement from the Vatican and that the majority of the posts were asserting that the RCC was doing bad things, I still think that “RCC=evil” encapsulates the actual debate (such as it was) that was in progress at that point. (Recalling that the OP was simply a cheap shot against the church and that a title can take an affirmative position on a debate without asking a question.) BTW, I would note that Dex’s exchange with squink is in error. I surely did see a debate; I simply noted that it had nothing to do with ordaining women (aside from its point as a charge of sexism). ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/39 "2010-07-21T22:04:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I still think that “RCC=evil” encapsulates the actual debate (such as it was) that was in progress at that point. (Recalling that the OP was simply a cheap shot against the church and that a title can take an affirmative position on a debate without asking a question.) That’s some good dancing skills you’ve got there, is all i can say. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332/40 "2010-07-21T22:48:33Z")
The source of the problem was a poorly worded OP. It was difficult to know exactly what was being debated. **Tom** was trying to bring that into focus, but went about it in the wrong way perhaps. If someone hadn’t read the news for a couple of days, she or he wouldn’t have any idea what this debate was specifically about or who “they” refer to. No personal offense **Hari** , but you should be able to present your case with more clarity and a more suitable title to begin with. (Bewildered Protestant) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-mod-behavior-acceptable-editing-titles-with-bias/547332.md?page=3)