Criticizing controversial topics

Yesterday how we condemned the topics of celebrating rape, murder and pedophilia was very much an issue on this very site. The main place of concern seemed to lay in not being angry at such topics. However a recently locked thread had this.

Now not many of us would disagree with the site owner's views. However I think a lot of us would like to ask if this is how we should react to such topics. Do we tell them that it's an utter crock of shit?

edited 21st Dec '11 2:58:19 PM by tsstevens

1) It shouldn't have had its posts deleted.

2) If it was to be trashed, it should simply state "This topic is just not a friendly discussion for this forum".

I would criticise Fast Eddie's childish tantrums, but Encyclopedia Dramatica already did it for me.

Needless to say, I am okay with blocking, but not deletion.

I'm just surprised because I didn't know Fast Eddie could do that. I knew he had thumping powers, but not thread-clearing powers.

Although one wonders what that could mean for the relevant tropes on the Wiki...

Well, he's the owner of this site. If he felt like it, he would replace the whiteness with pink.

edited 21st Dec '11 3:08:16 PM by Gannetwhale

It's the one topic that can not be discussed in a civil and mature fashion. The lock was inevitable.

We're not talking about a lock, though. Replacing a thread with a personal post blurs the line between a member's role and a moderator's role.

There was no way that thread was going to end up not cleared.

It's not the controversy itself, it's how people react when said controversy shows up.

So every time a controversial discussion and posts happen, a thread's content should be cleared? That's not how it works.

My question is whether or not this is how we, as tropers, deal with such topics. Apparently the answer is no, but going by what Eddie wrote maybe it is. So do we tell those who post topics relating to pedophilia that it's an utter crock of shit, or don't we? Or is it reserved for Eddie to say?

For my part, my involvement in the discussion was to civilly say how pedophilia's place in fiction has by and large been that of police officers who'd dearly like to kill said pedophile, and how it's disappointing that such a controversial topic is used when there is so much else that could be used as an art form, especially if the hook is not a well crafted story or an open and honest look at the topic but using the controversy of the subject as a selling point.

edited 21st Dec '11 3:34:37 PM by tsstevens

Last I looked at it, that thread was going bad places quickly anyways. It went from a very rational discussion about artistic merit to a near flame war in about three pages.

Besides, people have gotten banned/thumped/warned for discussing pedophilia in the past, since it's a flame-bait topic, and the mods have made it abundantly clear that this site has enough trouble with its reputation and we don't need to provide more fodder for slanderous quote mining.

Edit: It's also fairly standard policy to just delete threads that discuss sexual stuff, so that way we don't have more problems with Google Ads. There's plenty of people out there that want this site gone, and the easiest way to get rid of it would be to submit a report to Google saying that we're violating their TOS.

edited 21st Dec '11 3:44:28 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Then the thread should simply be removed. Personal opinion on an issue is not the same as moderating.

If it was controversial enough, I would just try to avoid the thread. But if I came into the topic solely to say that the discussion itself was bad, then that's rude to the whole thread.

Well, personal opinion kind of is the same thing as moderating if you own the place. I've yet to be anywhere (on the internet or IRL) where the opinion of the owner has no bearing on policy.

A member's role is to state one's beliefs and explanations on discussion topics. A moderator's role is to keep civility and order so rules are not broken.

Therefore it's correct to lock a topic with discretion, but it's not right to try to impose a personal view as part of that.

Well, it might not be what you want, but that's what every mod does. It doesn't matter where you go, personal view of the owner always means "That's my policy".

Mods are humans too, they have berserk buttons as well, and they have an even bigger reason to come down hard on sketchy stuff because it reflects worse on them than the members.

I don't think you understand my real point here: mods have roles as members as well as roles as staff. But those two shouldn't be mixed together.

Criticizing a topic of discussion in a mod post is a personal opinion and not policy. Locking it with notice of controversy is.

To answer OP, we should have the decency to stay out of topics we don't think are not worth it.

The big problem here though, is that most of the time members don't notice if you post something going "Don't talk about x", even if you have big red flashing letters at the top of every page announcing it.

This is personal experience talking.

Deleting a thread with an explanation of why it was deleted is a very good way to get your point across.

The way it was stated, though, is a personal opinion. You shouldn't replace a set of opinions with your own.

And as I've said before, personal opinion of the owner is what decides policy.

Like I said before, there's a difference between using personal beliefs to build a policy, and stating a personal opinion instead of enforcing that policy.

Then I guess we disagree. -shrugs-

Seemed like a pretty legitimate reason to clear an entire thread and lock it's contents, but it seems a tad stuck up to add a personal opinion as the last word to it, instead of just stating that threads like that create nothing but controversy, and that should people want to talk about it, to use other methods and such.

Just seems a tad unprofessional to add your last thoughts to it before closing it out, instead of explaining why such an incredible course of action needed to be taken.

There's bound to be some crying when something like this occurs.

The internet isn't a big old commune where all the users take collective ownership. To some denizens of the 'net, that realization can be a little jarring.

We're guests here, after all. We should behave as such.

I'm not suggesting there is...

edited 21st Dec '11 4:53:57 PM by GreatLich

There's nothing wrong with simply stating criticisms.

edited 21st Dec '11 4:26:05 PM by abstractematics