I guess I missed that there was a new policy about “rants” only being allowed in The Pit. But I don’t really see how this topic I posted in GD was “too ranty.”
The topic concerned US foreign policy, and attitudes towards drugs - which I thought proper GD fodder. Sure - I expressed an opinion - that people who travel to other countries and think they ought not abide by that country’s laws are idiots. But I thought there was a likelihood that other positions existed - such that there could be a debate or exchange of opinions - since so much of the press coverage has been sympathetic to the jailed person.
I guess I’m confused about the decision that my OP was phrased in a manner that was “too ranty.” I had no intention of just venting. How was it a better approach for the mod to slap me down by closing the thread, instead of just moving it to IMHO with an observation that the discussion should be kept civil (IF my OP was over the line - which I don’t really see)?
All opinions can be rants if phrased the right way. We’re not supposed to read tone into other people’s posts, but it’s impossible not to, and your tone in the second paragraph (at least to me) was ranty.
Dinsdale, I want to agree with you because I feel similarly on this topic. However it does seem more of a rant than the opening of a debate. If you had fleshed out some points beyond ‘druggies are stupid, mkay’, maybe there’s a debate or IMHO thread.
I’m with @GreysonCarlisle - that second paragraph felt pretty rant-like. The first made good, arguable points, but the second, plus the title, felt like venting.
And in case I wasn’t clear, I do absolutely see the point in the arguments in said first paragraph that I was complimenting, but you were coming close to killing any good-faith debate with that second. So better to rephrase / move to have a better discussion.
The second paragraph was maybe a 5 on the Beaufort rant scale.
But isn’t the more important criterion whether the OP raises an issue worthy of substantive debate, rather than the tone in which it is expressed? Seems like there’s a debate there, and I can’t see that it really compromises that debate for OP to have expressed strong feelings on the issue.
That post doesn’t read as a rant at all, it’s someone asking a question he has laid out fairly well.
Dinsdale’s original post about Brittnay Griner could have been phrased as a serious discussion, but his 2nd paragraph made it obvious he already had a passionate, personal belief about it–further, that he had come to his conclusion, and he wanted you to know that it was that Brittany Griner was a scumbag worthy of condemnation. That doesn’t seem like the opening to a real debate, just a place for him to get in a back-and-forth angry argument.
“I hear about politics day-in and day-out. On the news, social media, in books, games, magazines, the radio, random conversations, etc. But, why? Why should I care?”
Looks a tad ranty to me. I mean, just as a referent.
It’s a subjective standard. My opinion is that passage is less ranty than this:
Explain to me what I’m missing. She DID bring drugs into Russia, and got caught. Now US policy is supposed to be tweaked to get her out? Maybe instead Americans should realize the importance of either not going to hostile countries, or if they wish to, keeping their drugs at home.
Not everything can be boiled down to black and white objective measures.
GD should be called GQ. It’s all questions that beg the issue. A GD OP should present a resolution or major premise that is to be defended, otherwise the topic of the debate is not stated - ie:
‘Brittany Griner violated the laws of Russia and should not receive aid from the US Consulate.’
‘Brittany Griner did something stupid and does not deserve media sympathy’
‘Brittany Grider did not commit a crime and deserves my sympathy’
Well Dinsdale, regardless of the category, I completely agree with you. I really don’t understand why some people don’t understand how some countries work.
The “rant” thread was closed before clearly delineating what was or wasn’t a rant. I think the mod was a tad quick on the trigger in this case, judging the perceived tone rather than the context. I doubt it would take too much to find GD threads in which the OP expressed a “passionate, personal belief.” But I’m not going to exert the effort. And at least one person in this thread has indicated an interest in the subject matter. I’m not sure whose sensitivities were being protected here.
I guess by definition, the mod is always right. He/she knows a rant when he/she sees it. End of discussion.
The title reads like a rant, though. In general, I’d say “Why should I care?” comes off more about expressing anger than a legitimate question. Such a title works against you, and you have to kinda subvert it.
Dinsdale’s post, on the other hand, definitely came across like it confirmed the implication of its title, and that the purpose of the post was to rant about how stupid the person in question is, and that people are dumb to be sympathetic towards her.
It didn’t come across to me like it was looking for an answer.
That said, I do think maybe there is room for a slightly change here in policy. I suggest you specifically mention why it came off as a rant, so that the OP has a better chance of reopening the thread. It’s quite likely the OP disagrees about it being a rant, so such clarification would be helpful.
Or, at the very least, explicitly mention that you can PM the mod to get that information. Sure, that’s always the case, but reminding people could help facilitate that exchange, rather than an angry ATMB post.
