A little clarification about thread titles please

[Goofball]

I recently had this thread

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63081

closed with the following comment:

try again with an accurate subject title, please.

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with the thread title: "A messy can of worms to open."

The subject of the thread was a discussion about limiting freedom of the press and holding journalists criminally liable for bad journalism. In my mind, this is a complicated issue frought with dangers. Hence my title "A messy can of worms to open."

I understand that there has been some recent concern over thread titles, which led to the following post being stickied:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59362

containing the following comment:

Ser Clegane and I are asking that users who create threads try to use accurate or informative titles.

Titles like "those crazy christians" or "moron" dont seem designed to create discussion. At this point there is no fixed definition of what qualifies as "inflammatory" but please remember the users in the backroom are a diverse lot and it's easy to get off on the wrong foot with a carelessly placed subject title. Opinions are best served in the body of the post.

Let's all avoid teh lock.

Thanks!

I would like to point out that my thread title violated neither the letter nor the spirit of the above guidelines.

My title gave an accurate description of the discussion I proposed, and could in no way be construed as offensive or inflammatory.

I found the closure due to thread title to have been heavy-handed, especially as there was a another thread with the "informative" title of "Am I bovvered?" being allowed to procede unmolested.

(No offense meant, EA.)

Anyhoo, I am not asking for the thread to be reopened, as I notice that CR picked things up and started a new thread on the subject (thank you CR), but I did find the closure a little weird and wanted to comment on that.

So, what gives?

[Reenk Roink]

Well, I had a title named "Interesting Find" a while back, and when I complained about the lack of posting, solypsist (correctly) pointed out that a better, more descriptive title was needed.

[Blodrast]

My understanding is that a more accurate/richer description of the thread was the issue...not breaking the rules, or inflamatory or anything - just too vague.
That's my impression, though.

[Goofball]

My understanding is that a more accurate/richer description of the thread was the issue...not breaking the rules, or inflamatory or anything - just too vague.
That's my impression, though.

Hardly seems like a reason for closing a thread that had a healthy discussion going.

[Blodrast]

Hardly seems like a reason for closing a thread that had a healthy discussion going.

I seem to remember Kukri (and Tosa) were/are able to change the name of threads. I don' t know if all mods can do it. If they can, then I guess it'd be more constructive. If they can't, then creating a new one is probably better (as long as the initial one didn't get too far yet - and of course, this is subjective... :D)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I seem to remember Kukri (and Tosa) were/are able to change the name of threads. I don' t know if all mods can do it. If they can, then I guess it'd be more constructive. If they can't, then creating a new one is probably better (as long as the initial one didn't get too far yet - and of course, this is subjective... :D)

All mods and AMs can edit subject titles.

[Ludens]

All mods and AMs can edit subject titles.

This AM cannot. Unless there some function I have not spotted yet. I guess you have more options unlocked because the Sword Dojo has no full moderator.

[therother]

My understanding is that a more accurate/richer description of the thread was the issue...not breaking the rules, or inflamatory or anything - just too vague.
That's my impression, though

Hardly seems like a reason for closing a thread that had a healthy discussion going.

I would have to agree. Not with the specific instance per se, as the guidelines were set down quite clearly by the backroom staff, but with the general policy itself. Misleading, offensive or completely nonsensical titles I can understand being shutdown without ceremony. But in this case, surely just a quick edit of the title was all that was required -- a trivial thing with AJAX -- rather than forcing someone to repost the entire thread along with any relevant discussion from the previous thread. Even just merging the old and the new thread, keeping the newer, more informative title, would be preferable to needless thread proliferation of this kind.

[solypsist]

sorry. sometimes things just happen.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Anyhoo, I am not asking for the thread to be reopened, as I notice that CR picked things up and started a new thread on the subject (thank you CR), but I did find the closure a little weird and wanted to comment on that.

Glad to be of service. I must agree, too, with your confusion surrounding these new rules.

Crazed Rabbit

[PanzerJaeger]

Certain moderators enjoy asserting their "power".

[KukriKhan]

The rules are not "new" per se, that sticky about titles having been posted 7 January this year.

If this is going to become a bash-fest about power-hungry Moderators, I deem that discussion counter-productive, and without substance.

If, however, this is a question about whether org content changing/editing policy has changed (as I think the original poster intended), the answer is 'no', it has not. Moderators have used, do use, and will continue to use their discretion in managing content within their areas of responsibility.

The Moderator in question has taken the extraordinary step of saying "Sorry", indicating to me that were he to approach the same issue again, he might have decided differently. Meanwhile: water has flowed, grass has grown, and backroom discussion has moved on.

I think this indicates the the point raised has been considered and taken on-board.

Are there any other issues here?

[Blodrast]

I guess that's not for me to say, but rather for Goofball, but I guess the thread can't bring anything new.

It's actually funny, in a way, how threads in the Watchtower (and in its Backroom especially) are sooooo long lived. A lot of them get a few replies per day (if that), but they go on and on for weeks... ;) I for one wouldn't mind if they were closed after a certain point - Just A Girl's thread is a perfect example for that - I am aware it _has_ been closed, but I doubt anything was gained in the last - whatever, x posts in there.

Not a big deal anyway, just making some observations.