You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.

0
0

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

But to what end?

Hm, because they might only want on-topic posts in the subverse?

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.

This is a matter of taste. On topical subs, it's much easier to determine what's on-topic and what is not. Off-topic posts may get deleted quickly unless they have some entertainment value (such as, being off-topic due to a misinterpretation of the sub name, or whatever). On more general subs (such as this one) on the one hand it makes sense to be more oriented towards a self-regulating free-for-all, on the other hand being too liberal runs the risk of degenerating the sub into something completely unrelated (from AskVoat to IAmA or SoapBoxDuJour or SJWitchHunt or whatever). And sure enough the users might be OK with it, but the mods might be not, so why don't the users that would like to turn it into something else just actually open a sub for that particular kind of stuff they want?

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

Oh, I agree in general. The problem is finding a balance between mods abuse and users hijacking (for example, on /v/programming there has been some complaining due to a series of posts focused more about the SJWness of GitHub, which is only very tangentially about programming; as a /v/programming user myself, I don't mind the occasional post about this, especially if it's actually interesting even though off topic, but when it starts to become the main posting topic, it becomes annoying). And a newbie getting their post deleted because of a missing question mark is as easily lost as one coming to AskVoat to see piles of posts that are not questions but drama.

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.

The concern is that the mod (the most active mod of the sub, by the way) is allegedly abusing that rule to pursue the agenda, which IMO is quite idiotic considering that the rule is being applied to all relevant posts, by that mod as well as the others, and that the same mod has also applied the rule to obviously SJW posts missing the infamous question mark. So yes, the problem is the rule, and specifically the fact that it's objective and trivial to apply, so it cannot actually be abused if not by not applying it, which keeps such abuse allegations on shaky ground at best (which is why you'll usually find a copy-pasta of non-mod-related activities by the same user posted immediately as reply to such allegations, that wouldn't have a leg to stand on otherwise).

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.

Again, I agree with you in principle, but having been burned more often by the subjectivity of “obviousness” than by the objectivity of pedantry, I'm skeptical that this would lead anywhere nice.