Should moderators still be able to edit people's titles anonymously, for fun?

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Recently brought up in this thread, which the OP didn't mind but I still think it's worth discussing as I can see someone minding if it were done to them in the future.

My argument is that if a thread is low quality enough that such jabs are warranted (and I'm certainly not disputing that the thread is low-effort) then shouldn't the thread be locked and, if applicable, the user warned. Not to keep the thread open and mock the user.

It just seems to fly in the face of the transparent moderation we;ve seen, as well as the intent. Either the topic is valid or not. If it isn't shouldn't it be closed? If it is, then what's the need to anonymously attempt to mock the user.

Now note I am not outraged at all. This is a minor point but it's something that's cropped up that was prominent on the old forum and just feels, to me, like it conflicts with the values of the new one. So I wouldn't mind getting people's thoughts on it. Would be good to know moving forward whether this is something to expect.

Mod Edit (Hecht) - Again, let's keep discussion about "the old days" out of here. I know the urge to compare the two are there, but discuss how we move forward from where we are, not where we came from.

 

[Deleted member 15326]

Only rarely were "witty" edits actually witty and frequently the title change just caused confusion in following discussion or made the overall discussion worse.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Only rarely were "witty" edits actually witty and frequently the title change just caused confusion in following discussion or made the overall discussion worse.

Click to shrink...

Yeh, I just don't get the line of logic. It's obvious the thread is seen as not being of a satisfactory quality, so we'll append a joke to the title, inevitably derail the thread for a bit and then leave it open for discussion to continue to be bumped. Good point on confusion for people reading it after-the-fact as well, happened a few times to me in the old place before I twigged what was happening.

 

[Mahonay]

When needed. Yes.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

When needed. Yes.

Click to shrink...

Need implies not for fun, as if it broke a rule.

 

[BootlegSnackz]

I feel like that whole practice was kind of disrespectful to the userbase.

To be honest though, im not sure of the history behind that decision whether it was just taking the control away from the users because of a few bad apples, or just outright wacky internet hijinks, or maybe somewhere in the middle?

 

[Kirblar]

Yes. Not all prior practices were bad, correcting titles mid-stream (and especially if they're a self-own) is fantastic.

 

[Zoator]

Only rarely were "witty" edits actually witty and frequently the title change just caused confusion in following discussion or made the overall discussion worse.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. I would love to see this practice ended entirely, but if it does persist, at the very least the mod should edit the top of the original post with the original title to avoid confusion and make it clear that it was an edit.

 

[Lace]

Only rarely were "witty" edits actually witty and frequently the title change just caused confusion in following discussion or made the overall discussion worse.

Click to shrink...

Seconding this opinion. Unless it's clear there was a mod edit late joiners will be left confused with a weird title. The practice of changing a thread title "for fun" is easily abused and I don't see the purpose of it continuing.

 

[Buffer]

For fun, no I don't think so.

 

[ody]

Absolutely

 

[Speevy]

Hmm...good-natured fun, maybe. Not as a branding.

I was named Junior Sonbot in training for like 5 years.

 

[crimzonflame]

hell yes

 

[subpar spatula]

If you're going to edit something then put your name to it.

 

[Almeister]

No, it's childish and obscure with no accountability. Thread titles being a Mod playground is not worth the small chance of potential added comedy value, in my opinion.

 

[julia crawford]

Resist accumulation of powers

 

[NekoNeko]

It was one of the worst habits at the other place. They were never funny and it made everything confusing.

 

[sharpforprez]

Went from witty, self referential changes on the previous site to tar-and-feather sessions.

That site had a problem with it's moderators doing the most to keep in line with the mob. Be objective and don't let it happen here.

 

[Lord Brady]

Empowering mods to mock "regular" users should be frowned upon. And as others pointed out, the mods in the old place were never actually witty. They were more often than not mean, vindictive and self-serving.

 

[lint2015]

Definitely. What's wrong with you guys.

 

[Septimus Prime]

Yes.

 

[Brakke]

It usually makes a mess of trying to understand threads when the first page ends up being nonsense just reacting to the first title.

Never liked it.

 

[Matrix XII]

Yes I think so. Sometimes it was really funny and lightened up the mood.

 

[Pankratous]

I hate it.

 

[intheflorsh]

If it's funny, sure.

 

[Einbroch]

Yes. Even if I got a tag that made fun of me or a post I made I'd love it.

 

[Creamium]

Yes, but...

Hmm...good-natured fun, maybe. Not as a branding.

Click to shrink...

preferably like this.

 

[Deleted member 1852]

I think that if a thread is bad enough, it should just be locked. This isn't the frat house mentality of the old site anymore.

 

[ak1287]

If you're going to edit something then put your name to it.

Click to shrink...

I agree with this.

 

[Sobriquet]

Yarp

 

[Hexa]

I don't think that such edits should be banned overall, but I do think those that are basically just making fun of OP or the thread topic shouldn't happen.

 

[Braaier]

No, I don't think so. If it's a silly topic, posters, including mods, can point that out in the thread. Without waiting the op' s content.

 

[Marauder Shields]

No thanks, please leave that nonsense behind with the old forum.

 

[X1 Two]

It should clearly say which mod edited it and that it was edited.

 

[Brakke]

On mobile, there isn't even any indication that an edit happened.

 

[Deleted member 25600]

Sure, whatever. It was a badge of recognition in the old days.

Edit: Oh wait, thread titles? Yeah, to avoid confusion with poorly worded titles.

 

[Deleted member 4321]

It shouldn't be anonymous, and the edits shouldn't be dickish or snarky. Mods can troll or be jerks when they're posting as normal, but when they're moderating a discussion or using their superpowers, they should behave "professionally."

 

[Speevy]

If someone posts a topic about having an infatuation with goats, just ban them. Don't let them parade around the forum as a joke account with the title "Hey, I like to fuck goats" with a big link in the signature.

That's just stupid and lowers the caliber of the forum. That's a pretty crazy example, but you get the idea.

 

[Namiks]

For fun or not, I don't think mods should edit anything unless it breaks the rules.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

Taurus Silver had a good suggestion in one of the other tag threads that there should be a poll to come to a general consensus on whether the tags should be given by mods, allowed to be edited by users or no tags at all.

I think that would be a good indication on which way to go on this front.

 

[Deleted member 42]

I CANNOT BE STOPPED

For fun or not, I don't think mods should edit anything unless it breaks the rules.

Click to shrink...

I've had lots of requests to edit threads due to mistakes/dupes/changes/etc, it's a necessary need. I don't really feel like editing thread titles for no reason because I don't have that kind of time

 

[Sorian]

I loved it when it was done for comedy purposes. Being a mod in general is easily abusable, this is a weird place to draw a line.

Just show who edited the title.

 

[Deleted member 2802]

I think there should be an asterix (*) if a mod edits a title

 

[John Marston]

Taurus Silver had a good suggestion in one of the other tag threads that there should be a poll to come to a general consensus on whether the tags should be given by mods, allowed to be edited by users or no tags at all.

I think that would be a good indication on which way to go on this front.

Click to shrink...

Doing a poll sounds good too.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

I've had lots of requests to edit threads due to mistakes/dupes/changes/etc, it's a necessary need. I don't really feel like editing thread titles for no reason because I don't have that kind of time

Click to shrink...

That's not really what I'm asking here though. I'm talking about the specific editing of them for fun or to mock a user for their low quality post.

 

[Lace]

For fun or not, I don't think mods should edit anything unless it breaks the rules.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. However, I do think this should be a community decision though.

 

[BootlegSnackz]

I get the feeling now that some are confused about what we are talking about here (me included). With some referencing thread titles and other referencing the Member status tag?

I think I oppose either way when done anonymously, but editing a title and owning that you did that for clarity can be helpful.

 

[Mahonay]

Need implies not for fun, as if it broke a rule.

Click to shrink...

Hmmm, sometimes thread titles are super lame. Funny mod changes to titles can breath life back into a thread.

 

[Deleted member 42]

That's not really what I'm asking here though. I'm talking about the specific editing of them for fun or to mock a user for their post.

Click to shrink...

You can't block it out like that though, ain't how it works

 

[Santiako]

If they do, please please leave the original title at the top of the opening post. Otherwise all it did was turn the threads into people asking what the original title was.