Rant/vent posts

[cass2591]

So far today I've locked two threads because they had the word "rant" and/or "vent" in the title. Now, I could be a nice person and ask the OP to change the title, or do it myself, but since the announcement has been around for a while that this is not ehell acceptable, I'm not going to waste my time.

I will, however, remind people that if they want their threads to continue to please put a little thought into the title.

[ydpubs]

I did notice that one of the threads that was locked was not really a rant by the OP, but rather a post asking how to deal with someone who does go off on tirades. I was kind of curious how to diffuse and or avoid that type of person/situation.

[cass2591]

My point exactly. An otherwise legitimate thread was locked simply because of the title. Locking it had nothing to do with the content, but rather the title.

Considering this rule has been in effect for over a year, I would think posters would know better.

[Aeris]

Cass, I'm confused - is it against the rules to post a thread with the word "vent" or "rant" in the title, even if it isn't indicating that the post itself is a vent/rant?

I thought it was only against the rules to actually vent/rant, and particularly egregious when one announced the title of the thread that this is indeed what they were doing...

[Wordgeek]

The problem is when the thread title is misleading.  One of the locked threads was called Ranty McVent or somesuch - nothing to indicate that it was about *dealing* with or responding to vents. It's a clarity / housekeeping sort of issue as much as anything else.

The title should indicate the general topic of the discussion or the question it's asking.  That way people know what it's about.

[Keres]

Since my thread was not me ranting, I did not realize this was in any way a rule violation.  I would have appreciated some notice that I was violating an unwritten rule.

[cass2591]

It's not an unwritten rule. It's stated in the first topic in this folder. It's been there for 18 months.

And referring to your comment in another thread on this topic, sorry, I'm not spending my time PMing/notifying a poster who violates written rules.

[Keres]

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.

[DottyG]

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

I didn't see the thread in question, but can I ask a favor?

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).  Instead of venting here () about the fairness of it all, could you just restart the thread with a different title, so it stays within the limits set by the mods and still allows discussion of the topic?

It seems like you're spending more time arguing this issue of the title instead of just starting a new thread with a more acceptable title!  The mods said the topic was ok, so just go with that and name it something different!  Problem solved.

Now we all know that putting "vent" or "rant" in the title isn't allowed.  Whether we understood the rules as that before doesn't matter.  We know that now.  We learned a lesson here about the running of the place and can tailor our actions from now on accordingly.

[ShadesOfGrey]

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

I didn't see the thread in question, but can I ask a favor?

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).  Instead of venting here () about the fairness of it all, could you just restart the thread with a different title, so it stays within the limits set by the mods and still allows discussion of the topic?

It seems like you're spending more time arguing this issue of the title instead of just starting a new thread with a more acceptable title!  The mods said the topic was ok, so just go with that and name it something different!  Problem solved.

Now we all know that putting "vent" or "rant" in the title isn't allowed.  Whether we understood the rules as that before doesn't matter.  We know that now.  We learned a lesson here about the running of the place and can tailor our actions from now on accordingly.

She wasnt venting here about the unfairness, she was discussing with someone the various interpretations.  And I think, given the recent lock, it might be "misinterpreted" again if she were to repost. I know I certainly wouldnt want to. 

And while the moderators dont hold grudges against posters they've moderated, it's not out of line to question or ask for clarification from a mod about something that you dont understand or feel werent clearly stated-especially if they moderated before you were able to ask if something was ok.  Those that have previously posted in this thread arent the only ones that were confused by the action, and, again, if I were the OP, I'd be concerned about re-posting a thread that had been locked without some sort of clarification from a mod.  How was she supposed to get that it was an ok topic if she didnt respond/ask/clarify in this (or the other) thread?

[DottyG]

How was she supposed to get that it was an ok topic if she didnt respond/ask/clarify in this (or the other) thread?

True.  But, now she knows it's ok to repost it with a different title.  She asked.  She got the answer.  That should be the end.

Now, go put a different title on it, post the topic again and let's discuss it already!

[ShadesOfGrey]

How was she supposed to get that it was an ok topic if she didnt respond/ask/clarify in this (or the other) thread?

True.  But, now she knows it's ok to repost it with a different title.  She asked.  She got the answer.  That should be the end.

Now, go put a different title on it, post the topic again and let's discuss it already!

It's not the end if she still doesnt understand (which is different than going round and round about it ignorantly and just to argue the point, which Keres wasnt doing in this instance). She simply asked for additional clarification however.  It sounds like you feel it's inherently wrong to merely question a mod/the rules somehow, and, it's not - that would clearly be a huge detriment to this forum. 

I have to be honest, I totally didnt get the "it's wrong to put the word "vent" in the title of a post" from ehelldame's post from 18 months ago that cass is referring to, and I certainly didnt understand that *that* was the reason it was locked, so I'm glad Keres asked a second time, otherwise, I never would have known that a mod feels that that is against "the rules."  Now that I know, I obviously wont do it, but I cant say that (politely) asking for the additional clarification is wrong/rude/questionable somehow. 

[DottyG]

Oh for goodness sakes.  I just wanted to see if we could revive whatever topic this was.  It sounded as if it might be an interesting one, and I was curious about it.

Never mind.

[cass2591]

Regarding this, I think there was a misunderstanding.  I started a thread about how to stop people from venting at me, and I think it may have gotten locked due to the title making it mistaken for a venting thread.

I replied:

No misunderstanding because that's exactly why I locked it. Had you put a different title on it, I wouldn't have.

Feel free to start a new thread, but please, give it a more appropriate title.

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?

[ShadesOfGrey]

Regarding this, I think there was a misunderstanding.  I started a thread about how to stop people from venting at me, and I think it may have gotten locked due to the title making it mistaken for a venting thread.

I replied:

No misunderstanding because that's exactly why I locked it. Had you put a different title on it, I wouldn't have.

Feel free to start a new thread, but please, give it a more appropriate title.

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?

Because you mentioned that the word "vent" in the title was the reason for locking it. And  I (and others) didnt read ehelldame's post to mean that that word in and of itself was prohibited - just that in conjunction with an actual venty post it was.  So it seems like an arbitrary locking, hence the request for further clarification by Keres and others (note, not demands or excuses or anything, I totally understand why that's unacceptable).  Clearly more than one mod feels that it's an inappropriate title, so clearly anyone who's read this thread will abide by that. My issue isnt with the rule itself, please understand, my issue was with DottyG implying that Keres was somehow rude or beligerent to continue to ask for clarification on something she didnt understand from a moderator.  I didnt think she was rude/out of line and responded to that, since I was also confused by the locking and initial explanation (since I hadnt read ehelldame's post the same way as you or wordgeek).  And I have been grateful when others have asked for futher clarification on something at times too.  That's all.   I hope my long explanation clarifies things instead of muddying them up!