Per Ed's Request-Discussion of "Deceptive" Thread Titles Rule-NON-PIT RULES APPLY

[Fenris]

Here

@Fenris

I got missed in your big round of answers, and I’m really curious on this one: the title of the thread thing. Could you make that boundary clearer? I’m not asking for a “bright line” but there are about 3 examples of what, before this current situation, I’d have considered perfectly fine “eye-catching, good advertising but not 100% accurate” thread titles currently active.

@Ed Zotti

I’m not trying to put you off, but this is a side issue. The real problem was the intemperate response to a mod action. If the poster had simply protested in a reasonable way none of this would have happened. Let’s take up the question of titles in a separate thread.

Done. A separate thread.

I disagree that about the root cause of the real problem, but let’s leave that in the other thread.

My question: Could you clarify if “misleading” thread titles are ok or if thread titles must be 100% factual?

Just to help keep the discussion on target, I’m not talking about “bait-and-switch” titles where the contents of the post are totally unrelated to the title of the thread. Those are clearly not allowed.

The ‘offending’ thread title in question was “Planned parenthood hides rape of 13 year-old girl”. A 100% factual thread title would have been “A Planned parenthood employee tries to hide what she thought was the rape of someone she thought was a 13 year-old girl”

But that wouldn’t fit in the title box–and the original title is more eye-catching yet still summing up the meat of the Pit thread nicely.

A current (non-Mod intervention prompting) thread title is “McDonalds hates black people.”. A 100% accurate thread title would be “McDonald’s ads are composed in such a way to make me feel that they hate black people.” But that wouldn’t fit in the title box–and the original title is more eye-catching yet still summing up the Pit thread nicely…

Another one: Bush White House to Obamas: Maybe you can find a park bench to sleep on? Heh–GREAT thread title (I don’t even agree with lissener about the issue, but the title gave me a chuckle). Again though, it’s not 100% accurate as noted in the first post by lissener. That said, it’s eye catching and gets the feelings of the poster across while still being relevant to the subject matter.

Given that both of the threads above came after Euth’s suspension, I’ve got to ask why this rule isn’t being enforced.

Why didn’t a mod say “<mod mode> In your FIRST POST, you admit that the information in your title is inaccurate. This sort of inflammatory posting is trolling. DON’T do it again.</mod mode>”? (Note, I absolutely, positively do NOT think that lissener’s thread deserves mod intervention-I repeat: it’s a great title. I just don’t see a difference between the two and don’t understand how this rule is to be applied)

If this IS a rule, then really it’s not unreasonable to want some clarification as to why the second and third titles are OK but the first one prompts a harsh “Mod-hat on” smackdown.

Thanks

Fenris

[Shodan]

Also, if you could clarify if this rule applies only to the Pit, or GD (and other fora) as well.

This thread, for instance, is a good example of a misleading thread title but not in the Pit, and not about anyone about whom the mods would feel protective.

Regards,
Shodan

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

Also why the need to characterize misleading thread titles as “trolling” at all? We all understand a major consideration in composing titles (space) and the resulting occasional distortion of meaning, so why treat titles as any species of trolling whatsoever?

Again, in my preferred tone for Mods dealing with us lowly mortals, I would rather have a neutral “Mod here: changed title for more accurate content. Kthxbye.”

[Duke]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Also why the need to characterize misleading thread titles as “trolling” at all? We all understand a major consideration in composing titles (space) and the resulting occasional distortion of meaning, so why treat titles as any species of trolling whatsoever?

But that seems a like a big jump from “some thread titles are deceptive” to “no misleading thread titles are trolling.” If I made up a thread title called

pseudotriton ruber ruber does illegal things with kids

And the OP consisted of

Just throwing that out there for discussion.

I’m not sure that could be considered anything but trolling (OK, maybe extreme parody, but we’ve been down the “no joke threads in the Pit” road a long time ago).

[Jack_Batty]

This whole “Non-Pit Rules” shit is confusing the hell out of me.

Why isn’t this thread in ATMB? Isn’t that what the friggin’ forum is for?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

But I DO illegal things with kids!!

I drive over the speed limit sometimes when my kids are in the car, for example.

Seriously? What you’d do is hit the report button, a friendly mod shows up, sees the title, changes it to “PRR is one hell of a guy” attaches a note saying what he or she did, and we move on. If someone writes a dozen provocative, shit-stirring, evil intended thread titles per week, maybe you’d deal with trolling issues then, but even there, if they’re all changed within a few minutes of someone reporting them, how much harm has been done (assuming the person isn’t a troll elsewhere)?

[Fenris]

@Duke

I’m not sure that could be considered anything but trolling (OK, maybe extreme parody, but we’ve been down the “no joke threads in the Pit” road a long time ago).

But that was addressed in the OP. “Bait-and-Switch” thread titles are certainly trolling. Unless you had (and provided) proof that PRR did illegal things with kids, the subject doesn’t match the title.

[TwistofFate]

I think common sense should be applied to differenciate between hyperbole in thread titles, and thread titles which are designed to mislead negatively.

[Duke]

@Fenris

But that was addressed in the OP. “Bait-and-Switch” thread titles are certainly trolling. Unless you had (and provided) proof that PRR did illegal things with kids, the subject doesn’t match the title.

That’s what I mean, though. IMHO, PRR was suggesting that NO misleading thread titles could be counted as trolling, even bait-and-switch.

[Winston_Smith]

SDMB = Self-Destructing Message Board.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Duke

That’s what I mean, though. IMHO, PRR was suggesting that NO misleading thread titles could be counted as trolling, even bait-and-switch.

I was asking “What’s the point of treating misleading thread titles as trolling, since it’s kinda hard to fit completely accurate, dead-center appropriate titles into that little box anyway, and they’re so easily fixed?” actually.

If you could deal with all trolling that quickly and that permanently, we wouldn’t even need a term for it.

[Fenris]

@TwistofFate

I think common sense should be applied to differenciate between hyperbole in thread titles, and thread titles which are designed to mislead negatively.

Can you help differentiate using the examples above? To me, common sense says the three titles are all about the same level of “misleading”.

There’s also the “Pope” one “Pope: Economic crisis helps us leave simple lives” which is about on the same level of “misleading” (to me, at least) since what the Pope said was “Perhaps the world crisis that is affecting so many families and all of humanity could be the stimulus for rediscovering the warmth, simplicity, amity and solidarity which are the very values of Christmas” (Again, the thread title’s fine, from my POV)

But the point is that this seems an area where reasonable people can have a wide range of opinions (which will certainly be informed by the poster’s biases). This necessitates the need for clearer boundaries if mod smackdowns are the result of guessing wrong.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

The more rules we make, the more confusing it becomes, the more shit I have to remember (or know) when posting something, the less fun this place seems, the less likely I will remain.

[Duke]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

I was asking “What’s the point of treating misleading thread titles as trolling, since it’s kinda hard to fit completely accurate, dead-center appropriate titles into that little box anyway, and they’re so easily fixed?” actually.

If you could deal with all trolling that quickly and that permanently, we wouldn’t even need a term for it.

True, and I’m sorry I misunderstood you there. (See, that’s non-Pit for you.)

[Fenris]

@Happy_Lendervedder

The more rules we make, the more confusing it becomes, the more shit I have to remember (or know) when posting something, the less fun this place seems, the less likely I will remain.

But this rule already exists. Euth was given a “Mod hat on” smackdown for breaking it.

I’m not asking for a new rule, I just want the existing rule clarified beyond “I’ll know it when I see it.”

Like I said, if it was up to me, any thread title that wasn’t “Bait-and-switch” would be ok.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Fenris

But this rule already exists. Euth was given a “Mod hat on” smackdown for breaking it.

I’m not asking for a new rule, I just want the existing rule clarified beyond “I’ll know it when I see it.”

Like I said, if it was up to me, any thread title that wasn’t “Bait-and-switch” would be ok.

No I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about this “Non-Pit Rules” thing. I probably posted this in the wrong thread. I just saw “NON-PIT RULEs APPLY” and “Thread Titles” and I thought this was some disscussion of the new policy. See I’m thoroughly confused already. Apologies, carry on.

[TwistofFate]

@Fenris

Can you help differentiate using the examples above? To me, common sense says the three titles are all about the same level of “misleading”.

Planned parenthood: deliberate attempt to mislead and wilful ignorance of the facts.
WMD thread: personal interpretation (although incorrect) by the OP. I personally don’t see it as misleading, rather a sloppy paraphrase instead.

McDonalds: pure stupidity, idiotic interpretation of an advertising campaign.
The pope thread could bee argued as a valid interpretation of what Benedict XVI said. not very misleading.

[Mtgman]

Fenris did you put the “NON-PIT RULES APPLY” in the subject line? If you didn’t, who did? None of the moderators have weighed in here, and I don’t see any over the top behavior which would require them to throw the cooling blanket over the thread. What’s up? Are OPs allowed to specify the rules their threads will operate under? This gets curiouser and curiouser.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Fenris]

Yup, I did.

I used the “NON-PIT RULES APPLY” header for two reasons:

1. This thread was initiated at the request of Ed, in a NPR Pit Thread. It made sense that the spin-off thread would have the same rules as the parent thread.

2. If the idea is to keep things civil, might as well start that way and I really did want some feedback/discussion from Ed on this issue.

So absent a prohibition on members starting threads that way, it seemed the best course.

I may have been wrong, but that was my reasoning.

[Ed_Zotti]

@Fenris

I used the “NON-PIT RULES APPLY” header for two reasons:

1. This thread was initiated at the request of Ed, in a NPR Pit Thread. It made sense that the spin-off thread would have the same rules as the parent thread.

2. If the idea is to keep things civil, might as well start that way and I really did want some feedback/discussion from Ed on this issue.

So absent a prohibition on members starting threads that way, it seemed the best course.

I may have been wrong, but that was my reasoning.

Hm, I didn’t think this through too well. I didn’t envision posters declaring their own threads NPR; this was supposed to be something for the staff to do. Generally speaking, if you want a calm discussion of board policy, ATMB is probably the best place for it. But no big deal, this thread is fine. The staff is discussing the misleading titles issue, and no doubt will have something to say in due time. I have to go do some things, so you won’t hear much more from me this afternoon.