You didn’t provide a contrary view. You posted a link with no explanation as to why it might be positive gun news, knowing full well that it is not viewed as positive by most people in the thread. That’s either lazy… or more likely… threadshitting.
I’m entirely fine with hearing conflicting opinions. Where was the opinion presented?
Why does the sight of a holstered firearm so frighten you that you think it should not be allowed, even in a state where it is legal?
How many threads define threadshitting as not agreeing with a particular political viewpoint?
Being pro-gun control is not necessarily “opposition to guns” as already discussed here and elsewhere, but I get that discussion of gun control is itself off-topic. However, that also indicates that opposition to gun control is also off-topic in that thread. So posts like “Hooray! People can now legally concealed carry in East Dakota!” are now presumably verboten.
No that is not true at all. It is a thread that lists instances in which guns are used in a way that could be considered positive such as use in self-defense. If it was hijacked in order to make it a debate against gun control that would also be modded. The pros and cons of gun control are best discussed elsewhere.
No, because the first cite in the OP was about a gun control law that was sidestepped by a pardon. Anti-gun control is specifically permitted. Only pro-gun control is threadshitting.
Not according to the post from Loach right above yours.
Let’s be constructive and assume we’re talking post-mod note here.
Like every other post in every other thread all reports on posts will be looked at in context without a bright line. As E_C_G pointed out almost all of Fear Itself’s posts in that thread going back four years could be considered threadshits and moderated if we were to moderate like that. He has received no warnings in that thread.
Czarcasm created a “Positive Gun Control News” thread. Are you arguing that people who think that the defeat of gun control laws should be able to post those things as “positive” in that thread?
So Bone threadshit his own thread right in the OP? That’s got to be a record.
All of this discussion about the minutiae of what is permitted and not, with a magnifying glass, is missing the point. Everyone knows what is “in the spirit of the thread” and what is not. The people who are posting in favor of gun control know, deep down, that they’re going against the spirit of the thread.
I’m saying it is a poor policy to allow people to create threads on controversial topics, but exclude contrary views. Would you protect a thread called Positive Pornography that promoted the objectification of women from threadshitting by those who find it objectionable?
To be clear: I don’t want a bright line, just some clarity and consistency of approach.
And I have no intention of combing through that thread in future hoping to catch someone out for mentioning gun control (because even I am not that much of a petty asshole) and I hope certain other board members will exercise similar forbearance, but nonetheless the principle stands.
It was clearly threadshitting, and a fine example of it. Don’t be so disingenuous.
Of course not, it should be a safe space where nobody says anything untoward about gun control laws.
Good question. Are there limits to what topics can be given this type of thread?
Ideally the thread would have chugged along by itself without a problem. A handful of posters who are unhappy that someone is wrong on the internet have over the years threadshit in an attempt to derail the thread. This required mods to step in. Unfortunately the thread has had to be shaped by moderation over the years because of posters who could not stay within the rules. I don’t know if four years ago Bone wanted to also discuss laws that were positive to gun owners. I would think that if it turned into a GD topic and brought to my attention I would have moderated it. But that’s irrelevant four years later. The thread has been moderated and the moderators instructions are what you have to follow or stay out of the thread.
Do you think that, if someone posts a thread about their upcoming marriage to their same-sex partner, it should be allowed for someone in that thread to start lecturing about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or do you think that view should be restricted for the purposes of that specific thread?
It’s gratifying to know that you are also still amused by seeing that phrase.
That’s quite different. The topic is about the event. Homosexuality is incident.
How would you moderate Positive White Supremacy News?