"Too ranty" for GD or IMHO?

It can still be reopened in the pit. Or, if you want to try again with a tone more open to discussion, i think you could do that, too. (I am not a GD mod, though. Best to confirm with one of them.)

Sure - I could do either of these things. But the mod action left a bad taste in my mouth. I honestly do not understand the concerns that warranted closing my thread. Sure, I COULD have phrased it differently. But I did not understand that my choice of words was over the line. Characterizing a position someone considers reasonable as a “rant” is pretty offensive and provocative in itself.

The mods may feel that the action taken was necessary, reasonable, and unobjectionable. That’s fine. I perceived it otherwise. Like I said, there was no attempt to ascertain my motivation, or see if the thread could be “salvaged.” Having me take additional steps may strike folk as a very minor measure, and many/most may consider me unreasonable. Again, that is fine. But given that I thought this particular moderation unnecessary and offensive, I was not interested in taking that minor step.

To me that seems like fairly good evidence you were more interested in a rant than a discussion. If making minor style changes to your verbiage is so upsetting that seems like it wasn’t a good likelihood of being a debate vs an emotional argument about a personal rant.

Seems like the mods read this one correctly.

OK - I know I said I wouldn’t do this, but without going past the first page, how is this thread qualitatively different than mine, such that the OP was not immediately closed. It describes a cultural practice as “grotesque” in its title, refers to “Chinese lowlifes” and alleges animal torture for pleasure not supported by the linked source. I seriously do not see a workable distinction.

And given this:

I find it amusing that my closed thread is currently adjacent to “Why should I PERSONALLY care about politics”! :smiley:

MH - just because YOU personally think a specific action minor, does not mean that someone else should willingly undertake it. And does not mean that person is unreasonable or interested in merely “ranting.” To again cite the Chinese animal eating thread - that poses “a debate vs an emotional argument about an emotional rant”?

Nevermind…too snarky.

To state the obvious:

“What should we do about this problem” is a very different question from “why should i care about this non-problem”.

The first may or may not belong in GD. And it might be offensive on other grounds. But it pretty obviously is looking for discussion.

Also, the OP of the linked thread is 7 years old, and our rules and customs have changed since then. The recent posts in the thread don’t strike me as ranty.

[Off-topic rant on my own: God i hate the way Discourse shows dates. It’s really hard to know when a post is from.]

No, but as is patently obvious, “Rant” or not is a subjective measure. There is not a strict objective standard. By pointing out that I agree it was a rant I am simply adding in support for the concept that yes, a person could have viewed your post as a rant, which at leasts suggests it is reasonable for the mod who shut your post down to view it that way. That doesn’t mean it objectively was a rant, but it means a reasonable person could view it that way, and I think reasonableness is a pretty fair metric for evaluating the mods.

As was already mentioned too, the Chinese animal cruelty thread dates to 2015 and they did actually fairly recently update the rule on how to handle “rant” threads. I think had that thread’s OP been posted in 2022 it would have more fairly been marked a rant and re-opened if OP wished in the pit.

It looks like since that time the thread mostly went in a non-rant direction, which is good, but moderation rules change over time.

I don’t have a strong preference on whether rants should or shouldn’t appear in GD, but I don’t find it too bad of an idea for them to default to the Pit. Most threads started with the tone and nature of your Griner post, in my experience, rarely produce meaningful debate and usually produce silly anger fueled arguments. Which I suspect that is the core reason for the newish policy of banishing rants to the Pit, rants rarely result in quality debates.

I think I need Martin Hyde to write up my modnotes.

I agree with most of the other comments here. In contrast to other forums which divide sub-forums by subject Straight Dope has this classification into Factual Questions, IMHO, Great Debates, the Pit and MPSIMS. The OPs post is better suited for IMHO or the Pit.

I also think an Great Debates post should have been more general covering the whole area of how the U.S. should deal with other countries with much harsher drug penalties: one example is countries which put drug pushers to death.

I can’t remember a time when that wasn’t the case. It’s certainly not new.

For as long as I have been around here (2001) rants were always moved to the Pit. That is definitely not anything new.

What is new is that we have tweaked our policy on rants a bit. One issue is that some posters didn’t want their posts in the Pit and would have preferred to have them closed instead. The other issue was that many of the regulars in the Pit often felt that some of these moved threads weren’t really Pit-worthy.

So the new policy is that instead of just moving threads to the Pit, we now close them. The OP is then given the option to leave it closed or have it moved to the Pit, exactly as was done in this case.

On a related note, posts in other forums that would have previously been moved directly to GD are now usually moved to IMHO instead, as the previously moved posts tended to be framed poorly for debate and tended to result in poor GD threads.

Those changes are both relatively new, so it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of our users weren’t really aware of them.

But rants have always belonged in the Pit.

I read your closed thread and was also struck by it’s ranty, shallow tone and content. I certainly don’t really care about celebrities, or their legal trouble.

What is debatable is if a country has overly harsh laws/penalties, or if there are added factors that because of her gender, race and sexual orientation that threaten her safety and well-being.

On the other hand, I think the question of one personally caring about politics is a debatable question that doesn’t need additional factors for being considered and discussed.

As well as the severity and nature of of the crime and whether being at de facto war with said country (who this might want to make a political example) should factor in.

Thank you for finding a way to mention that sort of thing neutrally without actually gashing out the debate. I was struggling to point out what was missing without reigniting the debate itself here.