Seriously, this thread isn’t closed?
The disco ball brings out the sparkles.
If it is, Imma start a thread in ATMB to complain.
Whoa. It’s like that movie with the people sleeping or something.
And if it isn’t, complain as well. Be sure you use words from the Hive Mind Echo Chamber BINGO card the Mods sent to the Inner Circle.
Sure, we shouldn’t make their job harder. But that’s not what @puzzlegal advocated. She advocated making a change, and backed it up by saying it would make their job easier. I argued two parts: (1) that making their job easier isn’t actually their main concern as mods and (2) that this thread is ample evidence that it won’t make things easier.
There are some posters who would have gotten upset, sure. But they wouldn’t have had a point, and thus there wouldn’t be other posters saying that there was a legitimate issue here. And, if there’s no legitimate issue, the mods can just ignore the complaint, like they usually do.
No, but they are the ones who pointed out that the original people had a legitimate gripe here, even if they were over the top about it. They were the ones who promoted a better alternative that would make more people happy and be less disruptive.
@puzzlegal made an argument for a change in how the board is modded—that a rare tactic should become more common. I continue to argue that it is rare for a reason. It clearly isn’t needed very often, or this wouldn’t be the first time it’s come up.
You’re assigning some weird extra weight to the dictionary word “disruption.” It is entirely factual that the discussion of the topic was disrupted, for a period of 24 hours. There is no connotation that this disruption is the same level of disruption as a bus system or train or whatever.
I continue to think it was a bad call, and that it only looks like a good call in comparison to the melodrama at the start of this thread. The best action would have been to just say not to discuss the one topic.
actual emotional talk that isn't really relevant
If there is any emotion in this is, it is just frustration at seeing bad argument win the day. The counterarguments against my point involve (1) arguing for a position I didn’t argue against and (2) completely misinterpreting me based on a weird definition of a single word.
Plus it sucks when you don’t get back to a thread before the joke phase. You just look like a huge downer for actually staying on topic. And it even looks superficially long, which is yet another thing I’m supposed to juggle–making points, anticipating weird misinterpretation, unpacking assumptions, and keeping everything short and caring about aesthetics? It’s a tall ask.
I know a lot of the other people don’t really care about this board, and only pretend like they do. But I really do care, and wonder if I maybe shouldn’t.
There’s the melodrama. Not using the word “disruption.”
Lol, so ZS came back after a year to do what…? To whine about a place he hasn’t visited in a year?
My God.
No, I’m reading the weight that’s clearly been given to it as evidenced by the existence of this very thread.
The success rate of that approach is abysmal. It was not the best action.
Nothing weird about it. The sense that a disruption is a major or otherwise chaotic interruption is common (2 out of 3 senses),is in fact the original sense, and in no way idiosyncratic to me.
If we say something is “disruptive”, we don’t mean it is a planned, ordered event. But this was an ordered interruption. The very forces of Order decreed it,standing there in their Jackboots of Law +1. Nothing chaotic about it. It was sudden, sure, but that’s not the same thing. Emergency responses often are sudden.
So your continuing to cry foul that you’re being misinterpreted when you’re using the very loaded word disruption (as opposed to the somewhat more neutral interruption) is not something I’m attaching much weight to. Don’t want people to take a weighty read of your words? Use less-loaded words.
“Disruption” continues to be melodrama.
I’m dubious this is the first time this has come up. Heck, it’s covered in basic training, well before we are issued our jackboots.
And i replied quite carefully about “just tell posters not to talk about X”, and that post has gotten zero responses, so I’m going to repost it here:
I’m addition to “it tends to generate warnings”, in a case like this where the tired topic also generates pain to a segment of the membership (yes, women do feel discomfort reading men’s rights advocacy rants) it’s good to make sure the lines can be clearly articulated before reopening the thread.
Getting back to “what’s more work for the mods?”
Drawing the lines in the right place is extremely time sensitive if the thread is open. Moderating over-the-line content is also time-sensitive. When a hurtful comment sits it there, unmoderated, it hurts people. Anything time sensitive is hard on the mods, or impossible if it looks like they aren’t around. Whereas answering a thread like this can be done at leisure.
Hell, I feel discomfort reading men’s rights advocacy rants. And I do feel that MRA is an affront to the rights of men as well. Not unlike how fascism may prove to be an affront to the right of fascists too.
ETA: I have redacted a lengthy GD-style argument about “the why” since this is ATMB and all.
Key word being “rants”. One question would be what about a civil discussion on men’s legal rights regarding custody, support, etc. For example, if I bring up the equity/fairness that in California a husband must support his wife’s child if it is proved he is not the father after the child is three years old, is that a rant? Is that MRA talk that is forbidden on this board? If the mods allow it but it does turn into rants, will they guide the thread or close it? Will they do so pre-emptively (justifyably) assuming a few posters will drag it into MRA rants?
I’ll tell you what I’ve seen on this board from a thread I started is that many men here don’t realize that microaggressions exist or that they themselves participate in them so I do understand the concern that many that would participate in an MRA thread lack the self-awareness to not make it uncomfortable so I do agree with some form of moderation. I guess my question is what form of moderation that would take to thread the needle between fighting ignorance and unacceptable posting.
I’m going to jump the gun and show the “nuclear option” in action. Not that I think it is at all extreme to close such a thread. I occasionally do so.
I closed this thread for lack of content:
When you frame it that way, quite possibly. Which perhaps emphasizes the importance of the pre-clearance requirement for “thrice told tales.”
That is:
Continuing the discussion from New Rules for Great Debates and Elections – January 2020:
(Bolding mine)
So I would suggest, if you want to have that discussion, you consider reframing it to use less loaded language, and run it by the mods. I would imagine with the appropriate framing, you very well could get pre-approval.
Perhaps the same could even have been said for nightshadea’s recent endeavor? Point being, seems the rules are already pretty well suited to providing a resolution for those interested in responsible discussion without inadvertently promoting MRA, Holocaust denial, etc.