Constructive thread had a bit of a discussion about the closure of the thread about the homeless man being choked to death on the NYC for being a 'shock thread'; surprising mostly because it did quickly get a mod response:
Im trying to understand the line drawn on a “shock” thread versus anything else? This nyc subway one got locked https://www.resetera.com/threads/24-year-old-marine-chokes-homeless-man-to-death-on-the-ny-subway-nytimes.715567/ for being shock but that just seems really odd. we have threads all the time about random shootings, dog attacks, or even recently the murder thread in sf, but this gets locked? it just seems weird this happening on news stories, especially where there may be a large contingent of members.
I'll try to explain - it's not always easy to catch every shock thread that falls through such a large forum, so from a consistency side there will be gaps - but reports help in that regard! However, sometimes there are significant sociopolitical factors at play that might influence the importance of the story, especially if it involves someone prolific, or if there is police/state oppression and the like. Mass shootings are often ongoing events that might impact some of the members here, hence they stay for the sake of communication and fact checking. The shock thread policy aims to help to keep the forum not too overwhelmed by tragic and violent stories and discourage the sort of internet rubbernecking that many threads devolve to - its a balancing act really.
So discussing a worsening situation in cities around vigilante action is too much but reading ad nauseam about a gun incident is not? Ok that totally makes sense. Yep.
That thread became a discussion about chokehold techniques and the focus was on the chain of that particular event - which is very ad nauseam. The recency of the crime will override any nuanced discussion that really goes beyond it. I get and understand what the OP was trying to do, but I'd suggest a very different approach if they want to discuss something more systemic.
Doesn't immediately placate the masses, so they're sent off to use the report function:
So then why did the SF ceo stabbing thread remain open if this is the view? That thread devolved into attacks on drugs and homeless and how “sf is falling apart” blah blah. Only to turn out some rich fuck is who ended up being the person who perform the attack
I don't know what you're trying to say, but I think my post is reasonable and clear enough to understand the dynamics of how threads are considered. If you feel that something needs action you can also try using the report function.
Excel shows up to basically declare she'll be making a thread about the reactions to the incident:
Both the mayor of NYC and Governor of NY have released horrific statements about this murder and now we have no thread for it.
I'm going to make a thread about specifically government response. I hope it will be allowed to stay open
Then someone else point-blank calls the mod out for misrepresenting the prior thread:
I guess I’m glad I’m not the only one, because yeah, I did a double take when I saw the thread locked in real time, with what seemed like a very terse motive.
And yeah, it might be an observation bias and bad luck on my end, but it made me pretty uncomfortable that the first thing I thought of was how it mirrored the SF thread in the criminalization of the homeless and how happily western societies accept it.
That thread became a discussion about chokehold techniques
I’m sorry but rereading the thread, this is simply not factual.
So then Nepenthe strolls in to lay down the law and then issue a challenge to that guy who's had a pending moderator question for, like, months:
The "shock thread" rule is always going to be relatively up to interpretation because there is never going to be a way to discover an objective, ironclad consensus on exactly what is and isn't discussion-worthy. Effort, framing, and ongoing discussion quality can deem a thread worthy to be locked immediately or over time. Because it's variable, we generally don't even action for it unless it becomes habitual, and even then at most you lose your thread-making privileges. If you want lock posts for shock threads to be more detailed, we can do that, but as of now I cannot promise a significant rewrite of the rule that doesn't run into contingencies regarding threads that are of importance to discuss.
I'm still waiting on the supposed moderation stance that I've spoken of in here intermittently for… weeks? Months? At what point is the confusion around moderation policies intended versus an unfortunate accident?
Gonna be honest. I have no idea what you're talking about, and ironically your posts in this thread aren't clear on what you've been banging on about for apparently months, to the point that I get the suspicion you're as active in this thread as you are because you're scorned.
So let's fix this. Explain in detail exactly what are you trying to get a stance on.
Will this successfully ban-bait the guy into stating his moderation issue in the thread? Will we finally fucking find out what he'd asked about?
probably not
