|I wouldn't have a problem with threads titled about the fellating of dog corpses if the content of the thread were, you know, about having sex with dead canines.|
You've maintained throughout that this is indeed simply a case of thread title not being directly relevant to topic (I actually think it is in the sense of being hyperbolic dislike relating to the topic, but I take the general point) but, as I've said, I don't buy this as the sole explanation for taking the initiative to change the thread title. The thread's abstract was both descriptive of content and searchable - more so than many other threads which have passed under your radar. This, and the fact that you yourself have compared the situation to the 'Stumpfucking' thing a couple of times, makes me think that, as with that situation, it's the 'gross-out' ("non-vanilla sexual act") aspect that's attracted your attention rather than simply a disconnect between title and content.
If we think it's reasonable to alter thread titles for relevance even when the abstract is descriptive and searchable then maybe it's worth talking about that too? I've pointed out that the Conversation is full of such threads which haven't attracted moderator intervention. I'd also repeat, at this point, Tom's statement from my first post:
... unless the bad posting is abusive, harrassing, libellous, spam or a well-established troll there's no place for moderatorial intervention. Bad posting is allowed on Barbelith, just discouraged.
Tom's statement doesn't actually mention 'offence'; in order to merit moderator action, presumably something would have to be not only perceived as 'offensive' but abusive, harrassing, libellous, etc., etc. I think this is relevant to your other questions, Flower: if you see something that you consider offensive then yes, discussing it in the Moderator Actions thread, ideally with the original poster's input, would seem reasonable. Lula's sketched a rather more arcane system, which I have more questions about.
One of my concerns here is that there be some sort of public discussion of perceived offence before proceeding to moderator action - and, if that offence doesn't translate into abuse, harrassment, libel, etc., then I think we ought to have a high threshold for moderator intervention, certainly higher than seems to be the case at the moment. If abuse, harrassment, libel, etc. aren't taking place, then yes, I think we should wait for input from the poster in question before moving to change/lock/delete, even if this takes a week. But then, I'm a proponent of hands-off moderation, by and large; others will think differently, hence this discussion.
Moving back for a moment to the situation which prompted this discussion, I'm concerned that 'offence' doesn't become conflated with distaste/'squick'. I think it's important that we at least attempt to distinguish the two, lest we start to assume that distaste/squick = offence = reason for moderators to act.
I appreciate and understand Ganesh's concerns, but I see a risk of having to go through a 'Shadowsax: His Crimes' thread for each small issue.
Sure - and I'm honestly not pushing for that. I just want some examination of our motives as moderators, in the light of Tom's comments.