Rant/vent posts

[Keres]

It sounds like it might have been a really interesting thread that might have been helpful (if I'm interpreting what you're describing correctly). 

I'm honestly not inclined to considering a perfectly good thread with several good replies already exists.  I would happily change the title in the original thread, but I see no reason for those who have already participated to duplicate their efforts.  If the moderators wish to reopen the thread with a title change, that is fine by me, I have absolutely no objection to them altering the title of my posts anymore than I had a problem with a moderator editing my post when I mistakenly added an extra letter when discussing beaver habitats and tripped a forum filter.  Though offhand I can't recall if that was this forum.

I would prefer not to take a chance that my alternate title choice would be unacceptable as I am uncertain how to phrase a title for a thread about the etiquette of ranting without using the terms rant or vent.  It is a bit difficult, as the title of this thread itself would seem to indicate.

Keres obviously knew why it was locked, as she posted before I did in the other thread. Furthermore, I made it quite clear that she was free to start a new thread. Where's the argument here?

Actually, the only reason I asked is that after reading over the forum rules, the only possible conclusion I could come to was that a mod had just noted the title and locked the thread without first checking to see what it contained.   Thus I called attention to it, assuming it had been locked by mistake.

Perhaps it would be best however, to modify the initial sticky post regarding venty threads to clarify that the actual words are forbidden in forum titles, as the thread in question became very off topic and readers may well not bother to read through the entire thread to learn how the moderators have chosen to interpret the rule.

[DottyG]

DottyG implying that Keres was somehow rude or beligerent

Nope!  Just thought it sounded like an interesting topic to discuss and wanted to see if we could get it restarted with a different title.  Sounds like it's a no-go, though!

[RainhaDoTexugo]

DottyG implying that Keres was somehow rude or beligerent

Nope!  Just thought it sounded like an interesting topic to discuss and wanted to see if we could get it restarted with a different title.  Sounds like it's a no-go, though!

There's no reason you couldn't just start one yourself, if you want one started

[DottyG]

DottyG implying that Keres was somehow rude or beligerent

Nope!  Just thought it sounded like an interesting topic to discuss and wanted to see if we could get it restarted with a different title.  Sounds like it's a no-go, though!

There's no reason you couldn't just start one yourself, if you want one started

I don't know what the topic was, exactly.  No one's been ranting to me in my real life, so I don't have much of a basis in starting a topic like this.  Sounded like the OP had an issue where people in her life were ranting at her and she wanted advice on what to do.

Makes no difference to me!  Restart the thread or not.  At this point, I'm beginning to think I don't give a darn!   I thought I was being complimentary in telling the OP that her topic sounded interesting.  I got bashed for attempting.  So be it.



ETA: I'm not trying to be snarky in saying the above (and apologize if it comes across that way).  I didn't read the original thread, but the description sounded like something we could discuss pretty well in here.  All it would take is a change in the title.  I'm confused by why that's offensive.  I suggested that the title be changed and a thread restarted, so discussion could continue on the topic.  That met with a wall from various sides, so I give up.

[cass2591]

Keres, I don't change titles. Darned if I do, darned if I don't. I can guarantee you that if I did, and I'm not saying you would do this, but somebody, somewhere, would complain about me infringing on their right to free speech or something like that.

If I recall, your thread was about how to deflect your mother when she's gossiping or otherwise discussing something you care not to. I'm perplexed that you can't come up with a title for that topic as I can think of some without even giving it much thought, and considering you've been around for awhile, I'm surprised you can't, either. However, it's your decision. I will say this, though, I wouldn't have suggested you come up with a different title if the topic itself wasn't a legitimate one, etiquette wise. I will not do your work for you or anyone else. When we edit, it's for the sake of the forum.

[Aeris]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to add a clearly worded rule to the Forum Rules post, as it does not seem in any way to be common knowledge, and in fact seems counter-intuitive even after reading Ehelldame's post, that it is a violation to post a non-venting, non-ranting thread that contains the word "rant" or "vent".

I'm still confused though, as such a rule as that would make this very thread illegal.

[M-theory]

I see a rule against entitling a post 'vent' and having that post consist of nothing but venting.  It is not clear that the words 'vent/rant' are expressly forbidden in the title of the post.

It is plain that I am not the only one who interpreted the post as 'not only are posts that are nothing but rants prohibited, but it really annoys us when it admits it is a rant right in the title'.

The title indicated what the thread was about, that being how to respond to someone who constantly thinks you want to hear the rants.

There has a marked increase in the number of posts that are not only contain the words "rant/ranty/vent/venty" in the thread title but also consist of nothing more than griping, venting and ranting about a specific situation without the benefit of seeking any application of etiquette. 

...

There will be increased moderation in this area because it has gotten too excessive lately. 

I interpret this to mean "not only are these words in the title a no-no, but..."

[twinkletoes]

I'm still confused though, as such a rule as that would make this very thread illegal.

I didn't want to go there, but yeah, I agree.

[cass2591]

I'm still confused though, as such a rule as that would make this very thread illegal.

I didn't want to go there, but yeah, I agree.

How is it "illegal"? Because I used it in the title?

[wordgirl]

I think we've had evidence, even today in the smoking thread, that mods work hard to keep threads open when practicable. And moderators can't read members' minds, so the suggestion that a moderator could edit an offending thread title doesn't really work.

But I can see Keres' frustration in having a thread locked when the content of the thread didn't violate the rules, and a very simple edit to the title would render it 100 percent legal. I can see this happening again - not on this point, probably   but on something else.

Unfortunately, I don't really see a standing solution. If the mods were to implement some kind of intermediate step - suspension with leave to edit - for example - they'd stir up a hornet's nest of members complaining "Why did my post get locked when that other poster was allowed to edit her post and get it re-opened?"

However, I would ask this: If the originator of a thread finds her thread locked for reasons that the OP believes are easily fixable, is it OK to privately message a mod and ask for leave to make the necessary modifications? Would that request be considered? It's the only compromise I can see, and it wouldn't work in most forums, but it just might here.

[Aeris]

I'm still confused though, as such a rule as that would make this very thread illegal.

I didn't want to go there, but yeah, I agree.

How is it "illegal"? Because I used it in the title?

I'm sorry, I thought that's what you were saying the rule was. That it was a violation of forum rules to use the word "rant" or "vent" in the title of a thread. Isn't that what you are saying, and why Keres's thread was locked???

[Shores]

I'm still confused though, as such a rule as that would make this very thread illegal.

I didn't want to go there, but yeah, I agree.

How is it "illegal"? Because I used it in the title?

I'm sorry, I thought that's what you were saying the rule was. That it was a violation of forum rules to use the word "rant" or "vent" in the title of a thread. Isn't that what you are saying, and why Keres's thread was locked???

I think the point is that her title implied that her thread was a rant/vent and that mods have better things to do than read through every thread to see which are really illegal and which are just thoughtlessly making themselves look bad. I'm 100% sure that if Keres' thread was titled "How to keep my mother from ranting at me", it would not have been locked.

[jimithing]

I can see the confusion here. I saw the thread in question, and when I saw the title, I immediately thought to myself, "Wow, this thread is going to get closed very quickly." And then I read the thread, and realized that Keres wasn't actually venting.

I can understand the moderators not wanting to go through every post with the word "vent" in it. They do a great job. However, I can also see the confusion coming in where posters were essentially chastized for not following a rule that really isn't clear to begin with.

The post was NOT a rant or a vent, which is clearly against forum rules.

[Aeris]

I'm still confused though, as such a rule as that would make this very thread illegal.

I didn't want to go there, but yeah, I agree.

How is it "illegal"? Because I used it in the title?

I'm sorry, I thought that's what you were saying the rule was. That it was a violation of forum rules to use the word "rant" or "vent" in the title of a thread. Isn't that what you are saying, and why Keres's thread was locked???

I think the point is that her title implied that her thread was a rant/vent and that mods have better things to do than read through every thread to see which are really illegal and which are just thoughtlessly making themselves look bad. I'm 100% sure that if Keres' thread was titled "How to keep my mother from ranting at me", it would not have been locked.

Well this is clear as mud. I am largely in favor of clear, written, unambiguous rules - and this rule we are now discussing is none of those things.

If we want people to actually consistently follow the rules, we should be a bit more clear, explicit, and direct about *what exactly they are*.

I'm not even sure how to articulate a concise wording for the rule now. And I'll bet money that a lot of people on the forum wouldn't offhand know that this was considered "a violation of written forum rules". And I still disagree that it was, as the *written* rule is 'don't post with nothing but your rant/vent'.

It would save far more of the mods time if the rules are clear and understandable by the general forum population.

[RainhaDoTexugo]

I can see where the confusion is coming from, too.  I can understand the mods not reading every thread that looks venty, but if there's going to be moderation on non-venty posts that have accidentally misleading titles in the future, I do think it needs to be clarified in the forum rules.  Just a note to say "Threads that appear to be ranty or venty based on the title may be closed without further reading," or something.  I wouldn't have expected that thread to be closed based on what's written in the rules now.