i really appreciate your points. i think you might be missing one of mine, which is basically that this:
taking control over people out of a strong opinion what should be
… is almost by definition what a moderator has to do. the only question is where to draw the line. we can all agree that there “should” not be advertising spam or pure hatespeech, and we’re fine with mods directly “controlling” that content, even thought it was also presumably made by “adults.”
so, there is a line of “should” somewhere.
so where i’m hearing you, is when you say that it feels bad to have things moved when they are not obviously spam or hatespeech, and i am agreeing with you, and agreeing that a) the “line of should” is maybe a little on the “heavy” side, and b) that other options should be duly considered probably more than they are right now.
but i am also offering two considerations pulling it in the current direction: one is kind of prosaic - the fact that moving things too late leaves a sticky mess.
[i’ll speak for myself here. the great majority of my forum interactions are in a technical role. it is _vitally important_ that topics are neither too muddled, nor too diffuse, and that timeline be maintained as much as possible - otherwise it makes it hard for me to participate fully and - i hope - valuably. if we had to take a poll before splitting/merging technical topics i would simply give up.]
the other is about social norms - treating eulogy content as requiring particular attention and remaining aware that all of this is in the public record, and that death brings in a lot of new readers through search. (i’m speaking from experience when the death of a loved one is also the death of a semi-public figure.)
