Two new rules, maybe?

[DrDeth]

1. Guests can not start threads in the PIT. Maybe also GD.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8871280#post8871280

2. No more "whooshes" or deliberately wrong answers in GQ.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8873202#post8873202

What do you dudes think?

[Uvula Donor]

1. Guests can not start threads in the PIT.

Not sure if this is really necessary. Guests who start "inappropriate" pit threads are usually ripped apart pretty quickly (and thoroughly) by the membership at large.

2. No more "whooshes" or deliberately wrong answers in GQ.

I find myself agreeing with you here: whooshes and drive-by bullshit answers are distracting and don't really contribute anything useful to GQ. Does every forum have to be turned into a clone of MPSIMS?

[Bryan Ekers]

I think both proposed rules solve nonexistent, or at most trivial, problems.

[essell]

1.
Gotta agree with Uvula Donor.
I enjoy watching guests get torn apart, but no more so than members.
It's not like all guests get lured into the pit so the jackals can feast on their young tender flesh. It's the ones with an attitude, that has nothing to do with them being new, that get into the heated conversations.

On a more practical note, the whole point of a guest membership is so guests can decide if they like it here. Cutting out a couple large chunks of the board is gonna result in them crying "I didn't know people here were so mean!" when they're finally let loose on us, and us on them.

2.
I see no real harm in the rule as there's plenty of other places to screw around on the boards. However IMHO it's only the real subtle jokes that cause a problem. Sometimes screwing around in GQ has been really funny. I do think the same etiquette guidelines that apply to hijacking should be used because it almost is hijacking sometimes. That'd be common courtesy. i.e. don't screw around when the OP's question is still awaiting an actual answer.

[TubaDiva]

I realize that people may be irritated by these things but I don't think the answer lies in restricting guests to where they can go. We need to educate them better.

You shouldn't make jokes in an informational area unless you also are ready to provide the answer directly afterwards. Like so:

Question.

Snappy witty nonresponse.

Response.

If you don't have the correct answer save your wit for somewheres else.

[chaoticbear]

I realize that people may be irritated by these things but I don't think the answer lies in restricting guests to where they can go. We need to educate them better.

You shouldn't make jokes in an informational area unless you also are ready to provide the answer directly afterwards. Like so:

Question.

Snappy witty nonresponse.

Response.

If you don't have the correct answer save your wit for somewheres else.

Kind of like Hollywood Squares. Will you be providing us with pre-printed jokes for each thread? :D

[Rucksinator]

I disagree with the first. Let 'em have at it. What's the harm?

As for the 2nd, I'd say that at least people should use smileys if their post isn't serious. It's really annoying to have to sift through everybody's attemps at comedy to get to a real answer. Having smileys would alleviate a lot of the problem. I wouldn't be totally opposed to an outright ban on whooshes or deliberately wrong answers, but I don't think that the solution needs to be that drastic.

[An Arky]

I realize that people may be irritated by these things but I don't think the answer lies in restricting guests to where they can go. We need to educate them better.

You shouldn't make jokes in an informational area unless you also are ready to provide the answer directly afterwards. Like so:

Question.

Snappy witty nonresponse.

Response.

If you don't have the correct answer save your wit for somewheres else.

This is what I usually try to do if I have a joke answer. I realize that GQ is serious and all, but the temptation to be Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares is too great to resist. I don't mind seeing funny answers in GQ at all; it makes it more fun. But not at least attempting to point the OP in the right direction when doing so isn't a good thing, unless the OP's question is a really, really good straight line.

[hajario]

What Uvula Donor said.

[Khadaji]

I am opposed to too many rules. The pit is annoying to me and I stay away from it. I can't imagine why others can't too, if they find it annoying. Sometimes joke responses are annoying, sometimes they are funny. It is a social board as much as anything. I say leave things alone, lest you drive people away by being over-regulated.

[samclem]

2. No more "whooshes" or deliberately wrong answers in GQ.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8873202#post8873202


Since I'm a moderator in General Questions, I want to express my opinion of what I consider good behavior in that forum.

I don't want too many rules. I'm against making a new, restrictive rule. Hell, sometimes the OP is such a good "straight line" that I have been known to respond with a less than helpful post. That kind of thing is gonna happen. I try to resist, and I hope others do. I know it's pretty hard. As Khadji said, this is a social board. Hell, even Cecil would probably post one liners in GQ.

But where I draw the line is posting something that can be misconstrued. That's what happened in your example. While I'm sure the poster didn't mean for it to confuse, only posting in jest, it resulted in many people reading it the wrong way. And when a doctor, Qadgop, reads it the wrong way, in a thread which was designed to help someone understand a recent term, "Restless Leg Syndrome," and posts that this is one reason he doesn't post as much in GQ anymore, then it's time to say enough!.

Think twice, post once!

samclem GQ moderator

[anson2995]

I agree with samclem that we don't need more rules. Mods can intervene when folks misbehave. If someone's post is misleading, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate for the forum, let the mods deal with it on a case by case basis. The masses are pretty good at policing each other, too.

I also agree with Khadaji's views on the various forums. I've been a member for 8 years, and I don't ever stray into the Pit, or any forums other than GQ and ATMB. I suspect I'm not the only member with that preference. I do think that too many people feel the need to practice their standup routines with lukewarm one liners in GQ. While I'm sure some folks believe that this fosters an atmosphere of collegiality, I think it dilutes the value of the GQ forum. The percentage of posts in GQ that don't address the OP is much higher than it ought to be.

[Cartooniverse]

the temptation to be Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares is too great to resist.


I loved your work in Bye Bye Birdie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056891/). :D

Yeah, GQ is not MPSIMS but in the midst of serious sometimes humor works. OTOH, it is clear when it isn't appropriate or derails a really serious thread and leaves people dismayed ( QtM, for example ).

I cannot see a hard rule making that any better- it will alter the tones of the Forum in a fundamental way. Sometimes a wiseassed remark drives a thread in a new direction. No I don't have a cite, but since this post is proof that I love a good yuk and a decent answer in the same post as much as the next schlub, I've seen some threads that go hightailing off in new directions and sometimes it is because of a smarmy post.

What were those wise words from Jedi Moderator Samclem Kenobi? " Think twice, post once ! "

Cartooniverse

[DrDeth]

1.


On a more practical note, the whole point of a guest membership is so guests can decide if they like it here. Cutting out a couple large chunks of the board is gonna result in them crying "I didn't know people here were so mean!" when they're finally let loose on us, and us on them..

Ah, but I was not saying don't let them post there, I was asking for them not being able to start new threads, and only in those two forums. But I can see this isn't all that popular.

But what I am hearing is that the majority (including Staff) think that my suggested GQ "rule" is a Good idea, but not as a hard and fast"rule"- maybe more or a guideline?

Maybe it can be added to the GQ sticky, as a Guideline? As opposed to a rule?

And I got no problem with the "Hollywood Squares" format for GQ, after all, some question scream for a one liner. If you whip out that bit of snappy repartee, but follow it with a solid answer, that is a winner, as far as I am concerned

Compromise?

[Peter Morris]

1. Guests can not start threads in the PIT. Maybe also GD.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8871280#post8871280


I think it's up to them. Newbies have to follow the same rules as anyone else. If they are able to follow the rules of the pit or GD, let them do what they want within the rules. If they can't follow the rules, chuck em out.

Look at it this way. Guest status gives someone a trial period, to see if he and the Dope are right for each other. Their posting style should be tested in the free period, to see if they are suitable members. Any potential problems with someone's posting style should be seen during their guest membership.

2. No more "whooshes" or deliberately wrong answers in GQ.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8873202#post8873202

What do you dudes think?


Oh, but some whooshes are just too tempting to resist. Such as this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=380947) or this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=427437).

I'd really hate it if I wasn't allowed to post stuff like that. And at least a few people appreciate my sense of humour.

[DSYoungEsq]

Rules are not needed. The only rule that we have is the simplest and easiest to follow and enforce: Don't Be A Jerk.


Well, maybe not the SIMPLEST to follow...


In any event, whooshes in GQ are inevitable. What are you going to do to someone who insists on posting them, ban them? Get real.

If someone persists in making things difficult for people around here, they will be attended to. <doom music>

[DrDeth]

Those weren't whooshes. You made it very clear that they were jokes. (And, I don''t think either was all that funny, but in the words of the Great Pappy O'Daniel "there's no accountin' for taste.")

Now, really I'd prefer no jokes either in GQ- it ain't MSPIMS. But if you must, then do it Hollywood Squares style as TubaDiva suggested.

[TubaDiva]

Kind of like Hollywood Squares. Will you be providing us with pre-printed jokes for each thread? :DWhy would I bring a ham sandwich to a banquet? Jokes have never been in short supply around here.

[Annie-Xmas]

Why would I bring a ham sandwich to a banquet?

Because it's a vegan banquet?

Because you don't keep kosher?

[DrDeth]

It's getting worse. Two new examples:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8883976&posted=1#post8883976
post 16-21

If Q.E.D. thinks it is for real, then we have problems, it isn't an obvious joke.

Here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8883983#post8883983

So, maybe we need that rule after all. Or at least a sticky asking dudes to not do this.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

Unforunately, GQ, which used to be my favorite forum here, now contains so much chaff that it becomes hard to find the real answers. I though the reason we had seperate forums is so that different types of questions could be answered differently. It seems that GQ has become just another IMHO.

Just as it isn't acceptable to tell jokes in every real life situation, is it really necessary to tell them in every SDMB thread? If someone walks up to me at work with a serious question, they get a serious answer. GQ ican be like working with Don Rickles these days.

[Fear Itself]

Oh noes! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8885852#post8885852) Will we never be rid of this scourge?

[DrDeth]

Oh noes! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8885852#post8885852) Will we never be rid of this scourge?

Did anyone think QED was being serious? No, it wasan obvious joke. Now, it's true I am not a big fan of humor in GQ, but that's a useless battle. What I want to stop is deliberate falsehoods that can be easily misconstrued as serious answers. And, in particular, I don't want valauable Board citizens like Qadgop the Mercotan to be pissed off because of such. His advice is invaluable and worth a million "whooshes".

[Fear Itself]

What I want to stop is deliberate falsehoods that can be easily misconstrued as serious answers. So what was the "deliberate falsehood" in the Q.E.D. whoosh?
Anything made back then is so much better than you can get today.At worst that is a debatable opinion. No "deliberate falsehood". :rolleyes:

[bbs2k]

Rule #1: I agree that there are cases when a joke is made in poor taste, and maybe goes over people's heads. But I really like the humor in all the forums. Even GQ can get so funny that you guys have me in tiers from laughing so hard.

Rule #2: Likewise, why bar guests from the Pit? It's sometmes very entertaining. Keeping them from starting threads is beyond the pail.

[Thudlow Boink]

Yeah, the problem isn't posting jokes in general, but the kind of humor that consists of giving ludicrously wrong information with a straight face. President John Quincy Adams had 372 people beheaded during his administration for precisely this offense.

I don't know whether or not we need an Official Rule, and if so how it should be worded, but I don't think people ought to be doing this sort of thing in GQ if there's the slightest chance they could be taken seriously. Maybe, if you must post a joke answer or "fact" or suggestion, include a disclaimer that you were just kidding? (like I was about the John Quincy Adams thing)

[Derleth]

beyond the pail.I'm curious: Where do you think that phrase comes from? Because I know where the original phrase ("beyond the pale") comes from: The word 'pale' in this case comes from the word 'palus', Latin for stake or, by extension, fence. (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pal2.htm) That's also the origin of the Russian Pale where Jews were confined and the Pale in Ireland where England had direct jurisdiction, not to mention the word 'impale'.

Where did you think your version came from?

[Rick]

I'm curious: Where do you think that phrase comes from? Because I know where the original phrase ("beyond the pale") comes from: The word 'pale' in this case comes from the word 'palus', Latin for stake or, by extension, fence. (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pal2.htm) That's also the origin of the Russian Pale where Jews were confined and the Pale in Ireland where England had direct jurisdiction, not to mention the word 'impale'.

Where did you think your version came from?
It refers to the part of my back yard that is on the other side of the bucket that is lying there.
OH, SHIT! I just broke that new rule about no smart ass answers. :smack:

[Sapo]

I'm curious: Where do you think that phrase comes from? Because I know where the original phrase ("beyond the pale") comes from: The word 'pale' in this case comes from the word 'palus', Latin for stake or, by extension, fence. (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pal2.htm) That's also the origin of the Russian Pale where Jews were confined and the Pale in Ireland where England had direct jurisdiction, not to mention the word 'impale'.

Where did you think your version came from?
I am guessing it comes from the whole SBSO debacle.

[Lute Skywatcher]

2. No more "whooshes" or deliberately wrong answers in GQ.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8873202#post8873202

What do you dudes think?I see nothing wrong with the current unwritten rule "No joke answers in GQ unless a real answer has already been given."

[Mangetout]

2. No more "whooshes" or deliberately wrong answers in GQ.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8873202#post8873202
I found that one particularly strange because it just didn't register to me as a whoosh and I did actually (only marginally) absorb what I thought was a fact - that there was some correlation between peanut allergies and restless leg syndrome (it's not that stupid a thing to believe - genetic blips can cause weirdly unrelated symptoms - such as deafness in cats with some combination of coat colours and gender).

Fortunately it was corrected fairly quickly.

So, having been taken in, do I think we need a rule forbidding this?

No, not really.

For one thing, it's already covered by the rule; Don't be a jerk

But also (and IMO, only after the GQ has been fully answered, or declared unanswerable), if a GQ thread about, say, the topology of the London Underground can't descend into a spontaneous round of Mornington Crescent, then I think a little of what makes the board great will have been killed off.

[Lazlo]

It's getting worse. Two new examples:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8883976&posted=1#post8883976
post 16-21

If Q.E.D. thinks it is for real, then we have problems, it isn't an obvious joke.

Here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8883983#post8883983

So, maybe we need that rule after all. Or at least a sticky asking dudes to not do this.
Honestly, I thought wolf_meister's was blatently a joke. The extinct guitar wood and smilie at the end were dead giveaways, IMO. He also gave a factual answer regarding why vacuum tubes are still made. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that post.

The Windex comment was just dumb.

Your first example (in the OP), on the other hand, would easily confuse someone such as myself had QtM and yourself hadn't responded.

However, the self correcting nature of this board pretty much guarantees that bad info won't get out.

I also completely disagree with #2.

I guess I hate too many rules. For me, Don't Be A Jerk covers it.

(and on preview, I apparently speak in short, disjointed statements)

[DrDeth]

For one thing, it's already covered by the rule; Don't be a jerk.

Is it? I mean, that was being a jerk, and the Mod did say something but didn;t issue a warning. And it continues.

Once again, it is not about making funny jokes, it is about "whooshing" where the whoosh is hard to tell from an attempt at a real answer.

[Sapo]

I see nothing wrong with the current unwritten rule "No joke answers in GQ unless a real answer has already been given."
I don't know about that. It seems to me that the unwritten rule is "no jokes or whooshes AFTER the questions starts actually getting answered". The GQ cycle often is: Question, general joking, actual answer, additional questions and clarifications, hijack, jokes, death spiral, mod intervention, pitting.

All the jokes prior to the actual answer help keep the question afloat while an expert arrives. Once the expert arrives, the loiterers leave in search of another unanswered question.

[Wee Bairn]

Guests should be allowed to start pit threads for the reasons mentioned above- a perfect example, the recent unbroken pp thread. It provided many laughs, and shamed pp into self-imposed exile.

[bbs2k]

Where did you think your version came from?Just to clarify, in my response to rule #1 I made a reference to this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418380). In which a question was asked, clarification was made, joke made, question answered, then jokes for 3 pages.

And the "pail" reference was a reference to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=429508) "purposely" spoofed SBSO thread.

[Derleth]

And the "pail" reference was a reference to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=429508) "purposely" spoofed SBSO thread.Oh. Dang. I thought I might get some amateur linguistic sleuthing done.

[DSYoungEsq]

Geeze, folks, get over it. Some people don't behave as well as others would like. Since when is that news around here?

We've been in existence as a separate board from the AOL days for over 8 years. The character of the Board, including the tendency to offer whooshes in GQ, has been established long ago. Amazingly enough, we seem to muddle through ok. Anyone who can't handle the fact that there are occasional "answers" in GQ that aren't particularly helpful should simply find another place to spend their time, in my opinion.

[Mangetout]

Is it? I mean, that was being a jerk, and the Mod did say something but didn;t issue a warning. And it continues.I don't see how an explicit rule would make that any different - anyone repeatedly posting false information would eventually get brought to justice for being a jerk (I can think of one example where this has already happened).

The example in question did actually sort itself out in the end, didn't it? I wonder if there's any situation where a false answer wouldn't go unchallenged/uncorrected - seems to me that there's already an inherent correction mechanism for individual instances of this.

In general, I think addition of explicit rules isn't desirable, because it just defines the gaps between them more sharply - gaps that can be exploited by trolls.