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

A quick question, if you’re still around. Does this discussion include a review of Lynn’s judgment call on Euthananist’s thread and title, or has that matter been settled in the staff’s view?

Enjoy,
Steven

Sorry about the added layer of confusion–it didn’t occur to me until everyone started asking about it, that the NPR thing might be “Mods Only”…remember, I’ve been gone a while and back when, the Pit was the place for discussion of all Mod actions. Heh–I’m not used to being able to discuss mod actions and board rules in ATMB (I think that’s a huge positive change).

And thanks for discussing the “misleading thread titles” issue. I’ll look forward to hearing more when you folks clarify.

We’re discussing the whole shebang. And now I really gotta go.

Thanks for the response Ed. In my experience you guys do a pretty good job of thoroughly and fairly addressing the issues, even if the process isn’t as transparent or rapid as some of the community(including myself on occasion) may wish. Have a good afternoon, and it’s good to see you taking a more active part in the community, both as a poster and admin.

Enjoy,
Steven

Sit down and mind your business.

Since this board’s purpose is supposed to be about ‘Fighting Ignorance’, what sense does it make to allow misleading or inaccurate thread titles? People will see them even if they don’t open the thread and ignorance can be promoted as a result.

Also, with regard to the length of thread titles, I’m sure that shorter ones than the OP describes can be fashioned. For example, instead of:

“A Planned parenthood employee tries to hide what she thought was the rape of someone she thought was a 13 year-old girl”

the title could read:

“PP worker tries to hide suspected rape of 13-yr-old.”

or in the case of McDonald’s ads, instead of:

“McDonald’s ads are composed in such a way to make me feel that they hate black people.”

the title could read:

“Are McDonald’s ads racist?” or “Does McDonald’s hate black people?”

You know, “Fighting Ignorance …” is just a catchy little phrase for the home page. It’s not a by-law or anything. Chrissakes, we have threads dealing with rating the various actors playing Batman, Calvinball and people who make cameos in your dreams … and that’s just from today.

We don’t have to make every little nuance involved with the board into cold, clinical, peer-reviewed, boring crap. This board is designed to entertain too.

And why do you oppose, if you do, a mod just changing the title, and not troubling to figure out if the original title was the result of stupidity, inarticulateness, a bad sense of humor, or trolling?

Do you have any idea (if I could actually be arsed enough to look for them, which I couldn’t) how many times ignorance-fighting is brought up around this place in a serious way?

Because based on past experience it rarely happens.

Because like I said, people who don’t read the thread can still be persuaded by them…and because I may not want to waste my time trying to figure out it the thread is really what it’s supposed to be about.

And if people are too stupid/ill-informed to know what they’re posting about, then they should be required, IMO, to look into it first and make sure befvore they post a thread that they know what they’re talking about.

I doubt inarticulateness is the reason for very many misleading thread titles.

Really? I thought the discussion so far has been unusually level headed and constructive for an Internet message board.

After review of the recent controversy involving Lynn Bodoni and Euthanasiast, the SDMB staff has concluded as follows:

  1. Lynn said Euthanasiast was trolling because he posted a misleading thread title. Our rules define trolling as posting inflammatory remarks primarily for the purpose of getting a rise out of people. The implication is the poster doesn’t believe what he is saying and is just trying to jerk people’s chains. Whatever else may be said about Euthanasiast, we see no indication he was insincere in his views. So this wasn’t trolling as we customarily define it.

  2. Notwithstanding the above, the thread title was inflammatory and misleading. The problem is that we’ve never been particularly vigilant about Pit thread titles in the past. It’s not out of the question that a mod might take action in an extreme case - for example, if the OP really were trolling, or there were a pattern of over-the-top titles, or something of the sort. We don’t think that describes the present case. On any given day there are inflammatory thread titles in the Pit, some of which considerably overstate the facts and are misleading in that sense. We don’t think it’s worth our while to crack down on such things, for two reasons: (1) It sounds like a lot of work. Nobody feels like scrutinizing all sorts of news stories and YouTube videos and whatnot to see whether the thread title is accurate. (2) It seems unnecessary. If the OP’s title is misleading or he mischaracterizes the facts, other posters will call him on it - this is what happened in the thread in question. In other words, most threads like this will self-police and don’t warrant intervention on our part. Again, we reserve the right to take action in extreme cases.

  3. In short, we conclude this was a bad call and extend our apologies to Euthanasiast. In saying this, let me emphasize that I have great respect for Lynn and have confidence in her judgment. We all make mistakes; I’ve done my share of things I’ve regretted.

  4. I now need to emphasize a crucial point. The fact that a mod makes a poor call does not justify subsequent bad behavior by the poster. Lynn posted a “mod note” directed at Euthanasiast, and in response he told her to go fuck herself. This kind of thing is not acceptable behavior here and will result in disciplinary action. Most boards would simply ban the poster and be done with it. We’re more tolerant, but that doesn’t mean we allow people to do anything they want. Since some seem to have been unclear on this point, we didn’t ban Euthanasiast or suspend him for a long time, as we might otherwise have done. Instead we suspended him for a week. We feel this was amply justified. The week has now passed and Euthanasiast has been reinstated. We consider this matter closed.

  5. We will clarify the posted rules to prevent further misunderstandings, and I’ll help mod in the Pit to ensure the rules are clear to all. We trust this resolves the matter to the satisfaction of all.

Thanks.

I’m quite satisfied with the earlier portion of your post. However it concerns me as to how you plan to deal with undesirable reactions to mod actions.

I like simplicity and effective management that solves problems from the gitgo rather than relying on ongoing interventions. This is the likely result if you continue to use the Pit for posters, especially newbies, and there appears to be lots of them these days, to express their displeasure with a mod ruling.

After all, before a newbie gets in to the pit, this is what he reads on the Straight Dope Message Board.

There’s an expectation for permission to flame a moderator right off the bat.

Flaming a mod should not be tolerated, and if the administration can do its part to preempt it, a lot of headaches can be avoided.
I’ve suggested earlier that discussions regarding “board administration or moderation” be held in ATMB. We’ve used that forum before for announcing bannings.

My proposal seems so good to me, I’m at a loss as to why it isn’t being considered. Can you or anyone else for that matter explain to me the downside ?

We’ve discussed this from time to time. The general feeling among the staff has been that they don’t mind being Pitted and feel it’s a useful way to let people blow off steam. We think the recent clarifications will correct some of the problems we’ve seen in the Pit without requiring a major change of policy, but if not we may do something else, perhaps what you suggest.

Oh well, in that case…
:confused:

Do you honestly find this all that confusing? We don’t mind people opening Pit threads to flame a mod. We don’t allow people to respond to a mod action by flaming the mod. The distinction seems reasonably clear to me, but if a lot of people just don’t get it we may have to rethink. I’m not being critical; I’d just like to know. We want our rules to be easy to understand.

I’m Shodan, and I approve this post. Thoroughly.

Thank you very much.

Regards,
Shodan

bolding mine

my reading on the bolded rule clarification is:

Everyone who wants to take issue with a mod action must open a new pit thread to initiate a thread dedicated to flaming a mod.

This rule clarification only specifies that the slapped down poster is prevented from responding by flaming. Nothing here to suggest its okay for him to start a new thread.

Don’t get me wrong. I pretty much know how I will respond. I’ll just not challenge a mod ruling on “my infraction” unless someone else starts a thread on it.

But still, I think flaming mods is a bad idea. I know the mods like it cause they seem brag now and then about the number of pit threads they’ve incurred.

And I suspect that they enjoy the support they usually get when a poster flames them. Over the years however I can’t help notice that the mods get less and less support.

Yet I suspect that the administrators don’t appreciate the flaming .

I’ve never heard anyone tell you to fuck off or call you a moron. Interesting that there’s no rule exempting you. If only we could figure out why. Sorry, I digress.

Anyway thats my 2 cents on the issue and I really don’t mean to push it.