There are a lot of red sports cars out there because people like their sports cars colored red. It’s not because the powers-that-be are preventing sports car manufacturers from making as many sports cars in other colors. A lack of diversity does not automatically mean a suppression of said diversity.
In other words, as you said that topic by its very nature is likely to draw a lot of responses and examples, while other (politically different) topics might not. It doesn’t mean those other topics are getting squelched.
I’m fine with its existing. I’ll be honest that I’m less than keen on its placement in MPSIMS, which is largely a forum for fun and games - ok, not games, we’ve got other fora for those now, but it used to be a forum where one could get away from the issues that divide us. Not so much anymore.
In other threads, “no threadshitting” has a different meaning. In a football thread, it’s not threadshitting to have heated disagreements about football, but it would be threadshitting for me to go into such a thread and talk about why nobody should watch football on account of CTE.
In the Positive Gun News thread, the disagreement itself is out of bounds. (ETA: I can’t argue, for instance, that a particular DGU isn’t positive gun news, even if I were to argue that from the POV of legitimacy of gun ownership.) It’s a place for presenting supporting evidence for exactly one side of a Great Debate. Other than the ‘breaking news’ threads, this is the only thread where that’s been the case. And those threads are ephemeral, they’re there for a few days, then drop down the main forum page and disappear.
This has not been clear to me, so thanks for clarifying. While I’m still uncomfortable with the notion of such a thread, I may do exactly that. (Is MPSIMS the specific forum where such threads belong, btw, or could one be in IMHO or some other forum?)
Actually, you can, and people do. You do have to keep in mind the POV of the thread. But yeah, if you don’t think something is really “positive” from the POV of the thread, you can certainly say so in the thread. Just keep in mind that it’s MPSIMS, not Great Debates.
The posts that are getting moderated are the posts that are anti-gun, which is not the POV of the thread. Because these off-topic posts are being moderated, some people are saying that you can’t post anything that isn’t “YAY GUNS!” That’s not true. If you look at what has actually been moderated, Fear Itself posted about Kroger taking a pro-gun control stance, and called that “positive”. In a pro-gun POV thread, gun control is both off-topic and completely contrary to the intent of the thread, and is clearly not “positive” by the intent of the thread.
Prior to that, there was a warning for personal insults, and before that, manson1972 continued his quest to completely subvert the thread by intentionally posting things that, from the POV of the thread, were clearly not positive.
Actual discussions about whether or not something was positive, like some questions by aceplace57 and others, have not been moderated, because they are on-topic.
Positive news threads aren’t necessarily looking for opinions, they are just sharing news that those from the same point of view thinks is “positive”. So MPSIMS is the best place.
If you actually want opinions, or a debate, then IMHO or Great Debates is the better choice, and you’ll probably want to give your thread a title other than “Positive X news of the day”.
This is great news. If I ever want to talk about something I’m all-for and want no negative contributions whatsoever (read debate), I will open a thread entitled “Positive News about X”, and that will keep the nay-sayers out.
Fantastic. I’m glad I poked my head in this thread.
I am not arguing anything. I was responding to a query about why anyone would find the thread disturbing. People are used to a different type of interaction on SDMB.
Also, the “rules” that have been discussed here have been tacit in the past. It is commonly understood that you can’t threadshit, but it is not commonly understood, or stated in writing, that the OP has the last word about what is or is not appropriate to post to a thread. I am not arguing that idea is wrong, I’m saying that nobody ever said it was a rule before.
I agree with this, which is why I think such threads as we’re discussing here really ought to be somewhere else. Their very presence in MPSIMS changes the character of the forum, and not for the better IMHO.
Aye; that thread is clearly not about something “mundane”; it’s about something that is extremely important to the OP and others. It isn’t “pointless”; there’s a definite point that’s trying to be made.
OTOH, it can’t go in IMHO because it specifically rejects opinions that don’t coincide with the OP.
True - there’s no forum that it really fits in. If there are going to be threads such as this, they’re going to have to be an exception regardless of which forum they’re placed in.
My suggestion would be to put such threads in GD and have a linked ‘debate about the Positive ____ News’ thread to sound off in, if one is so inclined.
The OP doesn’t own the thread, but they do get to pick the topic. For example, if you want to discuss Border Collies, and only Border Collies, posts about other dog breeds in that thread would be off-topic. It’s the same basic thing here.
People think that the gun thread is unique. It’s not.
While MPSIMS is generally light-hearted, it is not always so. For example, that is where posts about serious illnesses and deaths also get posted.
I really don’t see, and didn’t see the last time around, why this is so complicated.
Guns is a controversial topic that has political implications.
PGNotD thread declares that stories of the violent use and proliferation of guns is good news, and does not allow any disagreement on the matter, even though that is not a position held by many if not most posters on this board.
It would be like if we a started “Positive Political News of the Day.”, and only allowed stories that were favorable to Democrats, and stories favorable to republicans are not allowed.
If it were named, “Stories of defensive gun use.” Then there would be virtually no push back on the thread. It is only because of the declarative title that people find it objectionable. When someone used the same formulation to broach a topic you disagreed with, you immediately took it as trolling. It was only after you went through all that with the warnings and the thread closure that I realized that you were not entirely incorrect*, that declaring your side of a controversial subject as “positive” is a form of trolling, even if unintentional, and the PGNofD thread, even if was not created with the intent of riling up anyone and everyone who does not find stories of people being shot and killed to be positive news, it still has that effect.
A better analogy would be a thread called ,“Who’s a good Boy?”
And in the OP, declare that only Border Collies are good boys.
*If PANofD had been made in a vacuum, then I would actually consider it to be trolling. As it was made by inspiration of this thread that it would be a place where people could talk about their personal experiences with it, without having to worry about being attacked by pro-lifers, it is far less trolling than PGNofD is, and as that has been declared to be acceptable, a similar formation should be by precedent as acceptable and protected by moderation as well.
I don’t think this analogy fits. Again, take the thread called “Positive Abortion News of the Day” (which you already allude to.) Should we allow any and all news on abortion to be included in that thread, whether it’s a thread about someone’s positive experience with abortion, or an abortion gone disastrously wrong? To allow pro-lifers to jump in like that would make a mockery of the thread. It would no longer be “positive” abortion stories; it would be “omnibus abortion stories for everything.”
Or what if someone had a thread called “positive Obama news” back in the days of his presidency, and even a post like “House Republicans vote to impeach Obama!” was considered “positive” Obama news because, well, someone finds that positive?
