You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
3

[–] WatDabney 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you have to have such a thing (and I'm not convinced that you actually do) then I would think that something along the lines of "This is a sub for questions. Therefore, all post titles must be actual questions." would work.

I think the demand for a question mark at the end of the title completely misses the point, since it's possible to put a question mark at the end of a sentence that's not actually a question AND it's possible to leave a question mark off of the end of a sentence that is actually a question. So the rule potentially fails to accomplish its nominal purpose, and in both directions.

Yes - whether or not a sentence is truly a question is a judgment call, but I'd have to say that if a title cannot accurately be judged, then there's no particular reason it needs to be removed anyway. The only things that should arguably be removed (and again, I'm not even convinced that they should be) are things that are so obviously not questions that it's not going to be in the least bit difficult to determine that.

So, while the Rule 1 as-is is pedantically annoying, it can at least be applied objectively.

Yes, it can be applied objectively, but it fails to actually accomplish the intended purpose, since, again, non-questions can have question marks and thus satisfy the rule and questions can fail to have question marks and break the rule, so that objective application of the rule can actually lead to leaving non-questions in place and deleting questions. Since that's explicitly the reverse of the intent, it's self-evident that the rule doesn't work, and the fact that it can be "objecively" applied is moot.

By contrast, a rephrased Rule 1 might be much less pedantic and annoying, but paradoxically it might be more prone to abuse.

Yes, it might. That's an entirely separate matter though. There are no rules that cannot be abused by those who wish to abuse them, so the key is to find and weed out those who abuse them.

0
1

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you very much.

So the rule potentially fails to accomplish its nominal purpose, and in both directions.

This is quite true. Of course for at least one of the directions you could still patch it up by adding the condition that it must be an actual question (e.g. allow "Am I Sir Walter Raleigh?” but not “I am Sir Walter Raleigh?” based on simple grammar rules), but this introduces the famous “judgment call”.

Yes - whether or not a sentence is truly a question is a judgment call, but I'd have to say that if a title cannot accurately be judged, then there's no particular reason it needs to be removed anyway.

One could argue from a different perspective that on ASKVoat, only posts that are obviously questions are on topic, but see, that's exactly the problem with subjective rules: it depends on the perspective of the individual.

Consider how much noise is being made about a mod that is simply apply an objective rule indiscriminately, and consider how much worse it would be if instead of being such a rule it was a rule based on a judgment call.

There are no rules that cannot be abused by those who wish to abuse them

This is only true up to a certain point. Rules the applicability of which can be assessed objectively are much harder to abuse, if they are applied indiscriminately. The only potential venue for abuse would be to conveniently “forget” to apply them.

0
1

[–] WatDabney 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

One could argue from a different perspective that on ASKVoat, only posts that are obviously questions are on topic...

But to what end?

The up and down vote function is supposed to serve to generally manage the sub - good threads go to the top and bad threads go to the bottom. That should be sufficient for most by itself. I don't see any reason that any thread should ever be deleted unless it's overtly destructive and thus really needs to be removed.

Deleting threads should always be the exception - it should only happen to the very worst of them. The rules should reflect that.

Consider how much noise is being made about a mod that is simply apply an objective rule indiscriminately

The concern self-evidently is NOT that the mod was "simply" applying a poorly framed rule. In fact, aside from this thread and a bare handful of others, the concern isn't really over the rule at all. The actual concern is that the mod has an agenda is is using the mod position to pursue that agenda. That's an entirely separate matter.

consider how much worse it would be if instead of being such a rule it was a rule based on a judgment call.

That's exactly why deleting a thread should only be a last resort.

I would say that if the deletion of any particular thread is questionable, then that means that that thread didn't need to be deleted in the first place. If a thread truly needs to be deleted, then it should be so obvious that there will be little to no question about it - yes, it'd ultimately still be a judgment call, but that's irrelevant, since it would be such an obvious one.

And such a conservative application of the rule would also mostly eliminate the potential for abuse right there.