The site software flags that word in any link or a post. This post (your post) was held up because it had that word and I had to manually put it through. It makes things easier for the moderators and there are plenty of other sites available.
Is your issue that the thread title is being changed to something that is incorrect or that it’s not as inflammatory as you want it to be?
while I am not who changed your titles, obviously they were not within the rules and attacking an administrator is not a winning strategy
As long as we politely stifle discourse and discussion of hard topics, everything here should be fine...
Then it should be easy to state which rule was violated in his title. The title of the thread was "Trump Deports US Citizen Child with Cancer." While the article he linked in support of the thread was broader (looking at three US citizen children that were deported), he chose to focus on one of them in particular. Which rule, specifically, does that violate?
I have explained, several times, a major goal and intention is to soften the tone in THFSG. Matching a thread title to the story that starts the thread isn't difficult. For those who demand a specific rule (and there won't always be a specific rule) see #16.
Okay, can you explain what was "factually incorrect?" There was obviously no nickname there. And taking the ability to edit posts without even needing the post to violate a specific rule is a very slippery slope.
As to 16, FAIL. My thread title was factually correct, and there were no insults or names called. It was my editorial choice to focus on the deportation of the cancer stricken US child, and to tie it to Trump, because this is explicitly his policy. So no, no rule was broken. You just arbitrarily changed it, to something I didn’t say, presumably to make it less unflattering to Trump. If you as admin are going to do whatever you want, because you can (and I understand you can) just admit it, and do it ethically. Just delete the thread and say I deleted it because it is unflattering to dear leader. What you did was put words in my mouth, which is actually a board violation (except for admins of course who can do whatever they want)
Wow! Nobody deleted your thread. I changed the title to match the story you cited. I've explained why . . . but you're not interested in an explanation apparently. Just further arguments and insults.
Are you saying thread titles must now match linked articles? If so make that explicitly a rule, although it will likely be the most idiotic one yet (just ahead of only referencing “ approved” sources). What can’t you understand about posters not wanting moderators to put words in posters mouth? I don’t want you posting on my behalf. If you want to lob softballs at dear leader please start threads doing so.
There is another interesting dichotomy here: you are forbidding people from commenting in their own thread titles (where no rule was broken but they violated some apparently unreviewable decision about tone) while requiring that they do so in the initial post. I should state that I support the rule there, just not the apparently arbitrary decision to edit other people's words where no rule was violated.
since its your thread, cant you just close the thread sine you don't like the new title? Or post it on the insiders where the title might be acceptable?
I am trying to soften the tone gradually as opposed to giving everyone whiplash and causing even more problems. It's why notes are being sent out with explanations instead of warning points just being issued. That's all. Contrary to what I've been accused of, I don't care what a poster's personal beliefs are.
ET locked it after I changed the thread title back. I don’t have access to insiders. So let me get this straight - here posts are being edited, or let’s say “improved” to increase civility and the quality of posts. But if I pay for insiders, I am rewarded by having a less civil tone and lower quality of posts? That’s quite the sales pitch.
Policing tone in the absence of rules is going to be a lot worse. There is no way that it will either be even-handed (such a notion is almost impossible) nor will it be perceived as such. In addition, it suggests the existence of a "correct" tone for every topic, which is highly problematic as well. For example, what is the proper tone for an act of genocide? Here is my suggestion for a rule that accomplishes your goal: Thread titles may not mock or taunt a political group or individual. Thread titles must be factual and substantive and supported by the required link. Add it on to the existing rules about thread starting.
It will be even-handed although nothing that is done will be perceived as "fair" by some. We only have to police the tone until it improves . . . more discourse or discussion of different viewpoints and less insults, less vitriol, etc. We're making changes gradually. We started with sources and thread titles. What can be more accurate than the title actually given to a story cited? We've also been sending notes about insults. Not judging or weighing what is "too much of an insult" . . . just stop insulting.
