When Is Thread Hijacking Political?

[Kaodi]

So I was told not to "debate politics" in the remembrance thread and while I do not dispute the "don't do this here" part of that I do think I ought to be able to say here in the Meta that what I was reacting too was precisely that memorializing people who are neither famous nor infamous but who are rather vicious does, in fact, seem political to me. Like, is it really within the intent of the rules to say that every in memoriam thread can be freely hijacked by repeated posts about every minor terrorist, war criminal, or terrorism or war crime adjacent individual that some news site comments on? This happened another time I saw recently when some posted about some Mexican drug lord none of us had likely ever heard of died. It was not el Chapo, or Khamenei, or anything like that. Just seems "beaurocraft of evil #6617254" . Like, I look at that thread for people who might be either worth caring about or at least acutely newsworthy. I do not understand how posts like the one I am reacting to improve the forum experience for anyone.

 

[Morrus]

I’m sorry, I couldn’t follow that. Could you rephrase, perhaps?

 

[Kaodi]

I do not think we need to hear about people like the "intelligence chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp [of Iran]" in the remembrance thread. I do not think it meets any reasonable definition of what those threads are for, and should be more or less disallowed.

 

[aco175]

I kind of view it as the thread not being about me. I think that there are many people on the site from other countries and cultures that may like people like that and want to take a second and post it. They may post everyone in that group throughout the year. Someone else might post only Nazi skinheads that have died or LGBT or pick your group. I do not have to give it a thumbs-up if I do not agree.

I would not like it if I posted someone from my thought of being worthy to pot and have others make light of it. I can also place a but in there when it seems like some posters are trying to make a political thing with posting every nobody from a group they want to promote.

I have seen people post sad face which I'm guessing is for people who do not agree with the post, but in the Remembrance thread I would guess might mean something else.

 

[Gradine]

It seems important to point out several facts:

1) This is a global community with members from around the world. While we are heavily Anglo-slanted, we are not Anglo-exclusive, and so people who are not particularly famous in some contexts are incredibly well-known in others. As the Remembrance thread is for the entire community, that means that are going to be posts that are less relevant to you than they are to other people.

2) If someone is posting in the thread, it obviously means something to someone. People have used the thread to commemorate people they know in their own lives who are neither famous nor infamous; shall we ban those posts as well?

3) If the complaint is about the avoidance of political commentary, referring to government officials in sovereign nations as "rather vicious", "terrorist(s)", and/or "war criminal(s)" is not exactly helping your position. There are plenty of politicians from all sorts of nations whose deaths will absolutely be memorialized in that thread or future iterations that could be argued meet one or more of those definitions, and those editorializations are going to be as inappropriate in those instances as yours are now.

 

[Deset Gled]

IMNSHO, this site really isn't the appropriate place to announce the latest high-profile military strikes. Majid Khademi was a military target. AFAIK, he was not a celebrity, nor was he a prominent political or religious leader. The report was news, yes, but not appropriate news for ENWorld.

That being said, the proper response to such things is always to report them. Calling things out in the middle of a thread, especially the Remembrance thread, is being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You know the proverbial 10' pole that's in a standard adventurer's kit? Think of the report button as that pole. When you absolutely must poke something that you know you shouldn't, use it. (Disclaimer: I am not a mod, I am not your mother.)

 

[Belen]

If someone is getting political in a thread, the ignore option is available. I do see it as political and feel that it is intended that way, but that is a mod decision.

I just avoid anything political these days if I can help it.

 

[Kaodi]

IMNSHO, this site really isn't the appropriate place to announce the latest high-profile military strikes. Majid Khademi was a military target. AFAIK, he was not a celebrity, nor was he a prominent political or religious leader. The report was news, yes, but not appropriate news for ENWorld.

That being said, the proper response to such things is always to report them. Calling things out in the middle of a thread, especially the Remembrance thread, is being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You know the proverbial 10' pole that's in a standard adventurer's kit? Think of the report button as that pole. When you absolutely must poke something that you know you shouldn't, use it. (Disclaimer: I am not a mod, I am not your mother.)

I can certainly admit I did not handle it optimally. Newsworthiness is certainly the key to the intuition behind my response though. When I mentioned "neither famous nor infamous" in this thread it was not just a throwaway line, it was my agreeing that some terrible people could, in fact, be worth mentioning. Kim Jong Un, for example. Or even if was a dictator I had never heard of but who had ruled their nation for a long time, sure.

And maybe "disallowed" was putting it a bit strongly. But "discouraged" would be suitable at least. Like, to cite an example in this thread, if someone starts memorializing Nazi skinheads seems to me something you want to address at a level above, "Every single user who uses this forum should have to address it individually."

 

[Umbran]

So, as the rules note, we will not discuss specific acts of moderation in public. By making this a discussion thread, you actually limit our ability to get at the root of the matter.

So, let me try this: When you want to raise a question about moderation, make sure you have paid close attention to what the moderator actually said.

Like, if you were taking High Tea at Morrus' home, and he brought out his antique china Doctor Who tea service for the occasion, and then left the room for a moment to get some clotted cream for the scones...

And someone said, "Hey! Let's re-enact the epic Wrestlemania match between The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin here in Morrus' living room, next to his antique china Doctor Who tea service!"

And you said, "Yeah, let's do that..."

And Morrus came back with the clotted cream and said, "Anyone caught wrasslin' near my antique China Doctor Who tea service is gonna be sorry!"

It would not be entirely accurate to say he told you, personally, to stop.

And the difference might matter in how you interpret the intended effect on the room.