Which is why I love the Discourse feature of muting an entire forum. The Pit doesn’t exist in Piper’s world.
As long as that post is, it’s still shorter and more consistent than the enforcement of the rules. And in many ways more accurate…
P&E for me. I prefer to engage with… the sort of people I might be tempted to engage with in P&E on an equal footing (which is only possible in the pit as far as I am concerned).
It’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, no. But I would argue it’s a relative big deal for this board. This type of thing where a thread is completely closed until the mods can discuss something is rare, and usually an extreme move. Most commonly it happens because a thread has gone so far off topic that a mod needs to discuss if there’s anything salvageable at all. Not because one aspect of the thread might not be a valid topic for the forum.
As other stated, there was a less extreme option: ordering people not to discuss the underlying topic until there had been another discussion. I’d say that was more in keeping with the way that level of issue has been handled in the past.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like how snappy and snarky that people got over it. I think the reaction was over the top. But I think you err too far the other way making it insignificant. And I personally would prefer to see this tactic remain rare.
As for whether the topic violates the rules? Yeah, sorry. The idea that men should get to decide not to pay child support is an MRA position. And, yes, claiming that the lampshades were not actually made with human skin is 100% a Holocaust denial subject.
I don’t assume that @nightshadea knew that. He likely didn’t realize the sources he found were Nazi propaganda. But now he does. Ignorance fighting mission accomplished. No need to let Nazi propaganda be posted on this board.
@JoeyP There could be no discussion if neither side is allowed to mention any Nazi propaganda, since that is the only source for the claim. And the appropriate analogy, IMHO, would be if we couldn’t discuss if it has been proven that there were no crisis actors in Sandy Hook. That maps to if it has been proven there were no human skin lamps made in the Holocaust.
Asking, say, if there’s ever been any example of actual crisis actors would be a different thing altogether.
I disagree. It just comes off like whining, attacking the entire board as a passive aggressive means of disagreeing with moderation. It’s just a way to get by flaming the board without using the Pit.
We’ll have to agree to disagree but I appreciate your terseness.
Maybe if that was their first thread like that. But it’s not. Cite (note modnote at the top) and previously-posted cite (it’s right there in the thread title, it’s the ATMB discussion about the first thread, but read the full discussion in the first)
I eagerly await the deep insights of a totally unbiased poster.
As opposed to the jaundiced take of someone who seemingly rage-quit for an entire year after some very deserved warnings and a suspension.
I wonder which this long screed will be?
… well, that was no surprise.
Medice, cura te ipsum.
But the rule is against Holocaust denial, not about things which may be tangentially related to something that someone at sometime used as an argument for Holocaust denial.
It is perfectly fine to say that the Holocaust was real in all of its horror, but there was one aspect, such as the lampshade story that turned out to be false (if it was false). Isn’t that what “fighting ignorance” is about? How is that Holocaust denial?
People can use objectively true facts for all sorts of bad purposes. That means the facts themselves are off limits?
I get that Holocaust denial doesn’t represent an existential threat to you and your family. I get that in your world, “let’s just see if any Nazis show up and then tell them they’re welcome to hang out so long as they don’t talk about too much Nazi stuff” is a workable solution for you. That’s cool for you. Must be nice. But it’s not the case for everyone.
Sometimes you don’t let something grow just to see if it might or might not be poison oak. Sometimes you just salt the fucking earth. Holocaust denial is one of those sometimes.
I’m sorry* you’re sad that the board is shutting down topics which are established Nazi fodder. There are other places on the internet who will happily spend time talking with you about lampshades and Zyklon B and space lasers. They’re easy to find.
And unlike this place, those boards haven’t ‘lost their way,’ They will never change. If anything, their purpose has only crystalized and sharpened as the internet has helped their members find one another. You may find yourself taking comfort in that kind of continuity. Best of luck.
*I’m not sorry at all.
If they get used to promote bad purposes too often, yes.
Maybe it should be less rare. Seriously, ordering people not to talk about one aspect of a topic has a very iffy success rate. It requires very active moderation. Posters who aren’t exactly sure where the line is (or who didn’t read the mod note, or who disagree with the mod note) will cross the line repeatedly. Maybe some will end up with warnings. And then, when the mods are discussing, at least some of them will have their opinion colored by the fact that they’ve just spent several hours battling with posters who crossed that line. And if the ultimate decision is that it’s okay to talk about it after all, the warnings are pretty unfortunate.
The times when “don’t talk about x” work are:
-
It’s a hijack, everyone kinda realizes that, and the mod note is an excuse to not need the last word
-
It’s a rule everyone respects (like no politics in breaking news threads) and when posters cross the line they feel a little bad about it.
It really doesn’t work well when x is something some posters really want to talk about, and often leads to people violating the line and/or writing rants in ATMB. And when posters really want to talk about it, it’s fairly common for it to lead to warnings. I don’t want to be creating warning situations before the mods have reached consensus on where the line ought to be. I’d much rather the thread be closed until the mods are clear on exactly what to tell posters not to discuss.
You wrote and posted it in the first place. How could you think that you never had an option to write and post it again, but less ranty?
That’s exactly what I mean, as those are the very words that I used.
I cannot imagine how you would have come to that conclusion based on the words that I actually used.
And the point being yes it was and not akin to reproductive rights BUT it was what? one or maybe two posts in the entire thread? And the reaction was to shut it all down until it could be discussed? I feel we need to return to moderate moderation when appropriate. And to those that say it was OK because they reopened it, I think they are missing the point of what is the decision-making process of the mods. Like I said before, the analogy is to cut off someone’s leg to fix an ingrown toenail. It’s OK as long as after talking to other doctors they re-attach the leg.
And it doesn’t help when a mod comes in here and sarcastically and IMO demeaning to the members about “How do you close down part of a thread? I don’t see a button for that!” (maybe not an exact quote) and instantly gets multiple replies of, “Yes you can. Here’s how you do it. And by the way, you mods do it all of the time.”
I’d say the analogy is backwards, in that it’s more like snipping off an ingrown toenail in order to prevent it from infecting the entire leg.
I’m not sure in what universe closing a thread is analogous to amputating a limb, whether or not it is reopened (reattached). A person missing a leg is severely hampered in their ability to go about daily life. A messageboard with one thread closed doesn’t really reach nearly that level of disability.
Because THAT was the way I wanted to write it. I didn’t see it as Pit-Level ranty and for the record it was relatively civil. By moving it into the Pit, all of the sudden civility to other members was gone and you saw what personal attacks occurred.
Because in was in reference to a post about what options the mods gave me. So at least to me it came across as an implicit: here was a third option the mods gave him. And I admit I’m a little sensitive about the issue of my choices in that thread (so maybe that colored how I read your post) because behind the scenes I fought hard against two mods about it being moved and when the mod said publicly that I agreed to have it moved to the Pit everyone thought I wanted it in the Pit so let the flame-wars begin. Although technically true, that statement by the mod was inaccurate as to my true feelings but by the time they came back in to clarify the damage was done.
As explained before, it is going to the most extreme option (short of cornfielding) rather than trying more moderate methods first. And the reaction of, “Well everything turned out OK so quit complaining.” misses the point of asking the mod why didn’t you try less extreme moderation first which is standard procedure on this board.
Our posts probably crossed, but i have replied to this.
Fwiw, as a mod in MPSIMS, i shut down part of a thread all the time, and i don’t think it would have worked in this case.
Nope.
IMHO, “this thread is closed for a short period while the mods reach consensus” is less extreme than “don’t talk about X in this thread” which is much less extreme than “this thread is closed. We are done here.”