By your strict interpretation of this rule, we cannot discuss (with accompanying possible thread titles):
Prostitution (“Have you ever bought a hooker?” If they don’t mean Nevada, BOOM, thread closed.)
Speeding (“What’s the fastest you’ve ever sped?”)
Jaywalking (“Stupidest crime you’ve ever been ticketed for”)
Homosexual acts (in several states) “Are you a Top or a Bottom?”
Polygamy (umm…don’t have a thread angle on this, really)
Adultery (still technically illegal in many states) (“Cheating on your spouse: did you feel guilty?”)
Robbery (“Biggest thing you’ve ever stolen from an employer”)
You’re going to have to suck it up, admit you were wrong, and broaden your focus … or close about 15%* of the threads on the board.
From the Department of Half-Assed, Unresearched Statistics
I am so frickin’ annoyed that this thread on how to steal your neighbor’s bandwidth is still open but any thread on drugs will (according to Rico) be closed. Talk about selectice moderating. (And yes, I did report it yesterday.)
Well, in all fairness, that’s not a “how to” thread. The OP posts that, merely by turning on his equipment, he was able to freely access two neighbors wireless networks. While this skirts the rules of illegality, IMHO I think his real purpose is discussing the ease with which this happens and how to prevent it.
Have the rules changed, then? Is there a specific reason it didn’t just die the death of other sucky theads?
Would a hypothetical “Why, specifically, does some marijuana smell vaguely like a disturbed skunk?” thread get closed, while a thread about its effect on consciousness remains open until it dies the natural death of Cheet-ohs jokes?
On the one hand, coming up with a list of ridiculously inoffensive words to filter (pee poo bra wee chest) made me feel like an eight-year-old, and not in a good way.
On the other hand, there’s something curiously liberating about moderating in the guise of an insane AI.
Can you tell us if there has been any serious discussion by the administration about the stated Posting Guidelines regarding illegal drugs, and Rico’s decision, which appears to me to clearly be in contradiction to them? If not, why not?
I don’t make a habit of questioning the decision of moderators. And frankly, although I prefer the stated policy that discussion of the effects of illegal drugs is permitted, I don’t particularly care if the administration does decide such discussions are not permitted. Nor do I particulary care if that individual thread is reopened.
My main concern is that, in the interest of the board, the stated Posting Guidelines be reasonably clear as to what is permitted and not permitted. If **Rico’s ** interpretation is correct, then the Posting Guidelines are very unclear concerning what is permitted, and should be rewritten to clarify that. If the Posting Guidelines are in fact correct, then Rico’s decision was incorrect, and should be reversed.
I know there are arguments for keeping certain rules intentionally vague, which I agree with. However, this doesn’t seem to be one of those cases. I can’t see why you wouldn’t want to clarify that rule, if in fact the policy is different from what it appears to say. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the Guideline says myself, but I think you will agree that if I am misinterpreting it, then a lot of other people are likely to as well (as is evident in this thread).
I think it is important that the administration address this question seriously, rather than continue to shrug it off.
By that token, you guys would close half the threads started every day.
