What we don’t need are blanket bans on whole topics. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, moderator What_Exit just shut down a thread about an AK-47 buyback proposal. The only reason given was, “We don’t really need another gun thread right now.”
There’s lots of topics I think are over represented in these forums. Cats for one thing. But you know what? If I’ve had enough cat stories, i just don’t open those threads.
I don’t think a ban on all gun threads is appropriate, especially when gun violence is front and center in current events. What’s next? No abortion theads? No Trump threads? No insurrection threads?
I appreciate the work the mods do keep discussions civil, but blanket bans are not conducive to reasoned discourse.
While I posted in another thread on this meta-topic that I don’t think we should have one giant omnibus gun debate as the only gun thread, and generally like to let threads play out, I largely agree with @What_Exit 's approach on this.
There was a mass shooting several days ago that has been front page news in the United States ever since. There has been a large number of threads about guns and the shooting posted (which is expected), many of them functionally overlap one another (and some frankly are just low quality and/or almost certainly just going to become troll fests for the specific subforum they were posted in.) I think it’s reasonable to prune these threads back when there’s a surge of activity like this with various threads opening that aren’t actually creating meaningfully new discussions from already extant current threads.
I support the closing, but not quite for the reason stated. It wasn’t that it was yet another gun thread, but that it was yet another gun thread that was already devolving to be a general gun debate, with people already getting heated. If it had stayed on the topic of buybacks and people had remained civil, I could see letting it slide since it’s a slightly different topic. But, as is, it became just another place for the perennial war.
I also do note that it’s actually not uncommon at all for a thread covering the same subject to be closed or merged into an existing thread. The general rule seems to be that we can have three different types of threads on a topic: one about factual information, one that is either opinion or debate, and one that is in the Pit.
Also, gun-related threads that aren’t a factual question or rant should probably also go in GD or P&E, due to how contentious they are.
Arbitrary moderation based essentially on, “I don’t want to deal with this,” has always been an issue here, and understandable if not ‘fair’ given that moderators are all volunteers who offer their time to cover wide-ranging and ever-expanding conflicts. You can complain about it but like the weather it will occur whether you express your unhappiness or not.
I will say that at least conflicts between direction by different moderators seems to have declined somewhat, so I assume at least they are discussing judgments more. Getting a ‘mod note’ from one moderator and following it only to get warned by another moderator for doing exactly what you were told to do is really frustrating.
You also accused me of trolling. I thought that was forbidden.
Please explain how my other thread was trolling.
I Do Not Want the thread I started to be reopened in the pit. It was a sincere attempt to find other’s opinions on what can be done about the issue. If such issues cannot be discussed on this board without having the posters insult each other, then, don’t be shy, make a topic ban in IMHO on the issue,
I don’t think the AK-47 thread should have been closed, which is why I opened a ATMB thread about it. Your justification is that there are “so many active gun related threads at the moment,” but the only current thread in IMHO is specifically stated not to discuss what can be done to restrict guns.
So, you say there is no topic ban, that you closed it because of “so many active … threads” when there isn’t, but close my thread by accusing me of trolling when I was doing nothing of the sort. I only opened it on the heels of the AK-47 thread because you said there wasn’t any reason to close it. It wasn’t trolling, I was really trying to find opinions on the issue. Not to debate the merits of the 2A or government overreach (so, not in GD), not factual answers, so not FQ, but opinions. There is no topic ban, no reason not to start one.
You are correct. I was wrong in that. I am not all that sharp on the rules. I thought that the appropriate forum to discuss a moderator’s action was ATMB, and I didn’t feel the accusation of trolling was appropriate.
Okay. I’m seeing a single gun thread open in IMHO, in which discussion of gun control measures is forbidden; and a single gun thread open in GD, which is a navel-gazing meditation on the origin of rights, and which specifically excludes gun control measures in the OP; and a single thread in P&E about a specific mass-murder and its political ramifications.
There is no thread open right now on what specific gun control measures are wise. (The P&E thread is closest, but it’s a hot mess of other issues as well). Folks keep trying to discuss this thing which is at the forefront of the current US political debate, and these threads keep getting closed down.
I ask you, What Exit, to allow one thread that’s dedicated to discussing specific gun control measures; and if you don’t want to deal with a billion thread reports, can you forbid people from coming into it with hijacks about other issues, in the same way you’re forbidding people to discuss gun control in the IMHO thread about police response?
Please either give it a few more days or open it in the pit. I’m unwilling to ride herd on another gun/shooting related thread at the same time I’m watching the Police one. I know Aspenglow is riding herd on the GD Political one.
No gun control measure thread fits in IMHO. It does belong in GD typically.
If a gun control thread got opened now, it would get hijacked, cars and buses would be drowning in pools and the flags will be pouring in. So no real discussion would take place anyway and then we would still end up closing it and then another thread would be started here in the ATMB about the closure and why didn’t we warn/suspend/ban the trolls (in this case meaning anyone that argued against the person posting in complaint but not actually trolling).
If a mod is willing to ride herd over the gun control thread, that is fine, I’ll obviously stand aside.
I think the issue with the Gun threads in Great debates is that as the issue -IS- so charged and important, that they don’t get 4 posts in (or past the OP in some cases) before they’re in rules violation.
Be proactive with your passion. Support your arguments with zeal. But be polite when criticizing an argument you oppose. Pejorative language that comes across as jerkishness will be moderated.
Posters stating things you don’t like are not necessarily trolling.
Posters disagreeing with your posts are not necessarily trolling. Try to listen to the other side. Don’t try to shut them out because they have a different opinion or belief.
I mean, the whole reason for the cited post is because that forum is so contentious - and yet with few exceptions (Stranger was doing a pretty good job of trying to address specific of buybacks as an example) it was already way past the point of ‘polite’ for most posters.
And we’re leaving out the gun debate (or de facto gun debate threads in the Pit right now which are verging on toxic, which is fine, because, well, it’s the pit).
Yes, agreed, @What_Exit could have been more clear, and I’m glad he responded quickly here. Waiting a few days makes sense, rather than opening another thread and the mods instead just start handing out warnings for forum violations because people -CARE- and aren’t willing to be polite when the issue is so raw.