Yay, we've been saved from ourselves again!

[PlainJain]

Link. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15035609&postcount=19)

Miller (who I believe is a good mod) closed the Walmarticus (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=650754) thread even though posters were having a good time. I know this has been done before but this is tiresome. If you really need to be anal about it, move it MPSIMP and let posters continue to have fun - the thing we come here to do, remember.

But I suppose Twix would save us from ourselves there. Sigh.

[Zeldar]

That may have been my fault. I make it a habit of not visiting The Pit. I have posted in 49 threads since I got here that are now in The Pit and a good number of them have been closed for whatever reason.

But since this one looked tame and silly enough I thought I'd break my own rule and see what would happen. I guess I know! ;)

Sorry, y'all!

[billfish678]

If you really need to be anal about it, move it MPSIMP and let posters continue to have fun - the thing we come here to do, remember.

But I suppose Twix would save us from ourselves there. Sigh.

Yep, because a silly thread there was closed down a few days ago.

[Little Nemo]

We've all seen it. A bad mood leads to bad modding.

[Czarcasm]

Are you actually protesting the closing of a thread where the OP says "Nevermind" after giving us nothing but the title? Low standards I can understand, but no standards whatsoever...?

[Inner Stickler]

Closing a thread because it's "too pointless" or "too silly" or "too stupid" means only one thing: the moderators clearly don't have enough to do. Sometimes the point is to not have a point.

[Czarcasm]

Closing a thread because it's "too pointless" or "too silly" or "too stupid" means only one thing: the moderators clearly don't have enough to do. Sometimes the point is to not have a point.Much like this thread, I suppose.

[Zeldar]

Much like this thread, I suppose.

Or maybe like this one. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646988) ;)

[PlainJain]

Are you actually protesting the closing of a thread where the OP says "Nevermind" after giving us nothing but the title? Low standards I can understand, but no standards whatsoever...?
Protest is a strong word for my OP. I just don't understand those types of closings. This is a message board. People come here for entertainment. What possible harm is there in leaving a thread open where posters are clearly having fun and there is no harm being done? My objection is not this thread in particular but these types of closings in general. Let us have our fun, consarnit!

As a matter of fact, it's always asked in these situations but never answered directly so let me ask it officially:

Mods, how can a thread be "too pointless" if people are participating in it and enjoying themselves? Why not let it sink on it's own accord? What do threads like this hurt by being allowed to remain open? Thank You.

[PlainJain]

Much like this thread, I suppose.
Not at all. Just because you don't like doesn't mean it doesn't have a point. I'm a member of this community - same as you - and as such, am free to express my opinion of the running of this board in the appropriate forum.

[Czarcasm]

Or maybe like this one. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646988) ;)No. Once again I point out that the OP of the thread in question said nothing more than "Nevermind"-as in "Disregard", "I made a mistake in starting this", "I changed my mind" etc.

[Czarcasm]

Post #4 from the MPSIMS rules sticky. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9505194&postcount=4)

[Inner Stickler]

And if the thread in question were a postcount padding party, that rule would be relevant. (If still dumb, but it's a dope rule so that's not new.)

[living_in_hell]

I like that thread! I know that this place is pretty much a nerd herd (I say that lovingly and include myself) but there was something about that thread that had a "last day of school before Xmas break" feel...like it was fun and funNY. Even smart kids need to losen up once in a while...and there, the humor was still smart.

Having had my first 2 threads closed plus numerous personal attacks (no not playing victim) as well as threats to be banned, I found it quite refreshing. Better than name calling or nitpicking a typo or a smily, in my opinion.

(please don't ban me for posting this!)

[PlainJain]

Post #4 from the MPSIMS rules sticky. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9505194&postcount=4)
Blah, blah, blah. Same ol', same ol'. I'm quite aware aware of that post. The thread in the OP doesn't apply to either but that didn't answer my question anyway. It's just the same dodge that's always given.

Let me help you see the relevant question

"What do threads like this hurt by being allowed to remain open?"

Wanna take a swing at a real answer?

[Trepa Mayfield]

I'm not a mod, but I would guess that the danger is in a number of useless/pointless threads being created/bumped/posted in at the same time, and pushing actual content off of the front page of the forum thread list. One might not be annoying (to you). Ten probably are.

[Czarcasm]

The OP removed any content or meaning of the thread when he posted nothing more than "Nevermind". Threads with no content or meaning get closed. That what it says in the rules you agreed to.

[PlainJain]

The OP removed any content or meaning of the thread when he posted nothing more than "Nevermind". Threads with no content or meaning get closed. That what it says in the rules you agreed to.
Yeah, I didn't think so.


.

[Inner Stickler]

I'm not a mod, but I would guess that the danger is in a number of useless/pointless threads being created/bumped/posted in at the same time, and pushing actual content off of the front page of the forum thread list. One might not be annoying (to you). Ten probably are.If there's enough of a community to make 10 viable goofy threads all at the top of the forum page then they're the actual content.

Czarcasm, if posting never mind stripped all the meaning from the thread, it would have had 0 replies and disappeared into the bowels of the forum. Since it didn't, clearly it meant something to someone.

[Czarcasm]

Yeah, I didn't think so.This is a moderated board, but apparently you don't like that fact. I happen to think that getting a sense of what a thread is about by looking at the title is pretty damn handy, but you seem to think that turning the whole MPSIMS into some sort of unmoderated free-association game would be fine and dandy. To each his(or her) own, but I think that such a forum would look like shit.

[Czarcasm]

If there's enough of a community to make 10 viable goofy threads all at the top of the forum page then they're the actual content.

Czarcasm, if posting never mind stripped all the meaning from the thread, it would have had 0 replies and disappeared into the bowels of the forum. Since it didn't, clearly it meant something to someone.Clearly it meant something different to each poster, which means that the title of the thread didn't make it clear what the thread was about which is, once again, against the rules.

[Inner Stickler]

Moderation is useful for eliminating spammers and handling poster disputes. Moderation is not useful when it attempts to change the tenor of the board. There's no reason to assume that allowing the walmarticus thread to remain open would have turned MPSIMS into any more of a free-association game than it already is and if it did, then it's because the community in aggregate wanted it to be that way.

[Czarcasm]

Here's a little test: Who here(besides the OP) can tell me what jali had in mind when he posted that thread?

[Inner Stickler]

Clearly it meant something different to each poster, which means that the title of the thread didn't make it clear what the thread was about which is, once again, against the rules.What's wrong with something meaning different things to different people? It's clear enough that she had something to say about the poster Walmarticus although, what that was, I couldn't tell you. What you have failed to do, however, is explain in a satisfactory manner why one must rely on the title to provide necessary context instead of the OP and why when it's clear that posters are ok with that lack of context, the moderators feel it necessary to close the thread anyway.

[Czarcasm]

What's wrong with something meaning different things to different people? It's clear enough that she had something to say about the poster Walmarticus although, what that was, I couldn't tell you. What you have failed to do, however, is explain in a satisfactory manner why one must rely on the title to provide necessary context instead of the OP and why when it's clear that posters are ok with that lack of context, the moderators feel it necessary to close the thread anyway.I'm not going to explain to you why the thread's title should have something to do with the thread, because it is self frakkin' evident.

[Little Nemo]

Here's a little test: Who here(besides the OP) can tell me what jali had in mind when he posted that thread?Is that the only standard? The OP is only one post in the thread, which you closed in its entirety. A bad OP might be part of a good thread.

[Czarcasm]

Is that the only standard? The OP is only one post in the thread, which you closed in its entirety. A bad OP might be part of a good thread.1. I didn't close anything.
2. The OP wasn't good or bad-it wasn't there!. It seems that jali was going to post something, then changed his mind, posted "nevermind" instead, and walked away from it.

[PlainJain]

This is a moderated board, but apparently you don't like that fact. I happen to think that getting a sense of what a thread is about by looking at the title is pretty damn handy, but you seem to think that turning the whole MPSIMS into some sort of unmoderated free-association game would be fine and dandy. To each his(or her) own, but I think that such a forum would look like shit.
Over-react much? Apparently the only way you can feel good about your position is by putting words in my mouth.

*I like this board.
*I like that it's moderated.
*I like the moderator of the thread mentioned in the OP.
*Sometimes threads take on a life of their own regardless of the OP.
*Your own OP mentioned in post 8 failed to meet the rules you quoted in post 12, yet amazingly it didn't bring the board to it's knees. No one used it to post-pad, it just sank away and all remained right with the world.

You can continue to rail "but it's a RULE!!! all you want but it doesn't answer the question of why. There used to be a 'rule' about instantly closing zombie threads. People voiced objections and the 'rule' was relaxed. That's how things can work, that's what this forum is for. Surely you can understand that... right?

[Inner Stickler]

I'm not going to explain to you why the thread's title should have something to do with the thread, because it is self frakkin' evident.Then someone should have changed the title to match the OP.

The reason Nemo thought you closed it is because you were a mod within recent memory, you're acting as if you're the mod who closed it, and if my memory isn't faulty, it's exactly the sort of thing you'd close a thread for.

Jali is a girl.

[Morgenstern]

What the hell, if a thread is active, good topic or not, why not let it breath? It's not like it's sucking the life out of a kitten somewhere.

[Czarcasm]

Then someone should have changed the title to match the OP.The OP of the thread was "Nevermind", as in "Disregard this thread, it was a mistake". What the hell would you change the title to to make it match the OP?

[billfish678]

What the hell, if a thread is active, good topic or not, why not let it breath? It's not like it's sucking the life out of a kitten somewhere.

You really don't understand how the internet works do you?

[Joey P]

Not that it really changes the discussion much, but just to keep our pronouns straight, Jali's a she.

[Scumpup]

Czarcasm isn't a moderator, so don't waste lifespan arguing over this with him further. He has no authority to lock or unlock threads, nor do his interpretations of rules carry any particular weight.

[Czarcasm]

Czarcasm isn't a moderator, so don't waste lifespan arguing over this with him further. He has no authority to lock or unlock threads, nor do his interpretations of rules carry any particular weight.Equal weight with everyone else posting here, including you. Right?

[PlainJain]

You really don't understand how the internet works do you?
OK, that was funny.

[Scumpup]

Equal weight with everyone else posting here, including you. Right?
Yeah, but I'm not the guy running his mouth like he speaks ex cathedra on board matters in this thread. You are.

[Czarcasm]

Yeah, but I'm not the guy running his mouth like he speaks ex cathedra on board matters in this thread. You are.If you think my opinion is wrong, tell me why you think so.
If you think I'm junior modding, report me.

[Measure for Measure]

I vote for closing pointless threads.

[Ellen Cherry]

Just my modly 0.02 here, since I'm not a Pit mod and didn't close the thing — I would have closed such a thread in IMHO, but left it open in MPSIMS. Probably Marley would tell you the same thing. If people are having fun in MPSIMS, even though it was basically content-free, there's not a big problem there, to me, if people are being clever and having fun with it. But the other forums, eh, it's a bit of a problem. They're set up to discuss stuff, debate stuff, have questions answered, and blow off steam. If there's content-free threads allowed there, then we aren't really upholding the standards we set out to have.

Make sense?

[PlainJain]

I vote for closing pointless threads.
A contender! I'm not advocating opening the thread in question, that would be silly but I would be interested in your opinion of what is the harm in leaving them open in general.

If you think my opinion is wrong, tell me why you think so.
You haven't given an opinion of what harm they cause, you just keep saying it's against the rules.

[PlainJain]

Just my modly 0.02 here, since I'm not a Pit mod and didn't close the thing — I would have closed such a thread in IMHO, but left it open in MPSIMS. Probably Marley would tell you the same thing. If people are having fun in MPSIMS, even though it was basically content-free, there's not a big problem there, to me, if people are being clever and having fun with it. But the other forums, eh, it's a bit of a problem. They're set up to discuss stuff, debate stuff, have questions answered, and blow off steam. If there's content-free threads allowed there, then we aren't really upholding the standards we set out to have.

Make sense?
Yep, thanks Ellen. I did suggest in the OP that if people were having fun and participating it could be moved to MPSIMS.

[Czarcasm]

A contender! I'm not advocating opening the thread in question, that would be silly but I would be interested in your opinion of what is the harm in leaving them open in general.


You haven't given an opinion of what harm they cause, you just keep saying it's against the rules.Something doesn't have to "cause harm" to be against the rules. If The Powers That Be want this place to resemble a message board where people have (sometimes) intelligent conversation, instead of a playpen, then it is their right to design the rules thusly. Personally, I see nothing attractive about "Post whatever you want, because we just don't give a shit" type directionless boards.

[Czarcasm]

Posting about cookie recipes in Great Debates "does no harm".
Posting about WWII in About This Message Board "does no harm".
Posting about your pet's illness in COCC/SR "does no harm".

[Inner Stickler]

The OP of the thread was "Nevermind", as in "Disregard this thread, it was a mistake". What the hell would you change the title to to make it match the OP?Dunno. I'm not the one with the thread titles must match OPs rule.

No one is arguing that the thread should have been left alone. We're saying, when you have a choice between moving it to the quote unquote silly forum or closing it, why not do the option that still leaves people the chance to play in it?

[Little Nemo]

Posting about cookie recipes in Great Debates "does no harm".
Posting about WWII in About This Message Board "does no harm".
Posting about your pet's illness in COCC/SR "does no harm".Posting about mundane pointless things in MPSIMS does no harm? Because isn't that where your analogy breaks down?

And I realize the Walmarticus thread wasn't posted in MPSIMS. But threads in MPSIMS have been closed down for having no point - in a forum that's supposedly intended for pointless threads.

[Czarcasm]

Posting about mundane pointless things in MPSIMS does no harm? Because isn't that where your analogy breaks down?

And I realize the Walmarticus thread wasn't posted in MPSIMS. But threads in MPSIMS have been closed down for having no point - in a forum that's supposedly intended for pointless threads.Perhaps the word "Pointless" should be removed from the forum title?

[billfish678]

nevermind

[PlainJain]

Perhaps the word "Pointless" should be removed from the forum title?
Or the rule relaxed a bit.

[John Mace]

What a stupid idea to keep a contentless OP thread open. Why not just have a bot to open threads every second with no content.

Good moderation by Miller.

[Inner Stickler]

Oh for the love of-

Come back when you understand our actual objections, John Mace.

[Little Nemo]

What a stupid idea to keep a contentless OP thread open. Why not just have a bot to open threads every second with no content.

Good moderation by Miller.It's not about the contentless OP. It's about using the contentless OP as a reason to close a thread which had seventeen other posts in it.

[Czarcasm]

It's not about the contentless OP. It's about using the contentless OP as a reason to close a thread which had seventeen other posts in it.So it's o.k. for the mods to close a contentless OP...unless a bunch of posters gets to it before the mod does?

[Czarcasm]

It's not about the contentless OP. It's about using the contentless OP as a reason to close a thread which had seventeen other posts in it.Were those seventeen other posts on-topic?

[billfish678]

Where they off topic?

Hmmmm...were they?...hmmmm?...put that in your hat and smoke it.

[RaftPeople]

What a stupid idea to keep a contentless OP thread open. Why not just have a bot to open threads every second with no content.

I'm not sure about this, but there might still be time to ask the mods to erase all evidence that you posted this.

[Measure for Measure]

What a stupid idea to keep a contentless OP thread open. Why not just have a bot to open threads every second with no content.

Good moderation by Miller. Outstanding moderation by Miller. Top notch. Six stars.



Whether the thread should get moved to MPSIMS is a judgment call. But my take is that there are plenty of diversions in that place already and frankly the quality of the responses to the Waldart thread were... appropriately ephemeral. So there truly was no loss in closing it and it was not trivially respectful of the OP's wishes.


Fun! Bah! We're here to fight ignorance. Any "fun" I have here is purely strategic. Scarequotes are fun.

[Little Nemo]

So it's o.k. for the mods to close a contentless OP...unless a bunch of posters gets to it before the mod does?The mods should only close a thread if the thread is a problem. They shouldn't close it because one post is a problem.

Now if the entire thread is only one post, then a bad post justifies closing the thread.

[John Mace]

Oh for the love of-

Come back when you understand our actual objections, John Mace.

Oh, boo-hoo. We want this MB to be a playground. Sorry, but you lose.

Good moderation, Miller. The Pit is the place for rants. There was not rant. Thread Closed. QED.

Start your mindless thread in MPSIMS. Don't expect every mindless thread to be moved there.

[Inner Stickler]

Start your mindless thread in MPSIMS. Don't expect every mindless thread to be moved there.It's a dumb policy that adds nothing to the board but takes away from it. And there's now a new pointless thread in MPSIMS as a direct result of this thread so you guys have actually increased the number of pointless threads here. Good job, brownie.

[Czarcasm]

It's a dumb policy that adds nothing to the board but takes away from it. And there's now a new pointless thread in MPSIMS as a direct result of this thread so you guys have actually increased the number of pointless threads here. Good job, brownie.That Free Association thread? I like it. The OP follows the title, and the other posts follow the OP.
Totally unlike the thread in question, btw.

[PlainJain]

And there's now a new pointless thread in MPSIMS as a direct result of this thread so you guys have actually increased the number of pointless threads here.
You're talking about the "We Have Pigeon Eggs" thread, right?




I keed, I keed
:)

[Inner Stickler]

Totally unlike the thread in question, btw.You mean the thread with 6 posts making Spartacus jokes? Yeah, that thread is truly a forest of nonsequiturs.

[Autolycus]

I agree with Ellen. It was not appropriate for the Pit, and should have been closed or moved.

I don't agree with Czarcasm though. A content-less OP does not a content-less thread make. I thought the Spartacus riffs, while certainly not high comedy, were more than suitable to pass for content in MPSIMS, and unfortunately I've seen many many similar threads closed in that forum for the very same reason, no content, (although it's most usually phrased with the ever-so-delicate "too stupid to live.") But, in any case, I thought this thread was about discussing the rule in general for MPSIMS, and that rule in particular sucks the light-hearted fun out of a forum that is specifically designed for it. I for one have had several of my own threads closed for being too dumb, and it really juts my craw to see threads like Czarcasm's stupid and derivative corn thread allowed to live. I guess if I want to experiment with silly OPs, I'll have to wait for the next day it's ok to be silly, or be an ex-mod or something.

But I'm veering dangerously off-topic. This isn't about my posts. This is about a style of moderation that, while in line with the super-serious ivory tower demeanor of most of the board, is in direct conflict with the tone of the one forum where it's ok to be a silly shit. It is mildly irritating at best, and downright lame at worst. I can see if these types of threads dominated MPSIMS that it would be a problem, but I highly doubt they would, as most people, even when being silly, prefer to be silly about something. However, with that being said, sometimes the silliness rises directly because of a stupid OP, and right now these types of threads are being mod-shotgunned down before their prime.

But whatever. It's not a huge hairy deal either way. It never was and never will be, and that's why this particular rule, or moderation style, is never going to change. Shoehorn butterhorse, the end.

[koeeoaddi]

Or maybe like this one. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646988) ;)
Not to mention the icy fear that the thing could take off and go on for, oh, say, 107 pages?

No, really (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=158752). :)

[Crazyhorse]

The OP isn't content-less at all - it has the title 'Walmarticus' and is in the Pit. So clearly the original intention was to pit Walmarticus. For whatever reason the OP changed their mind. If the thread were left open the result would be that Walmarticus was pitted without context no matter what direction it went from there. It might have been fair game to pile on to that with posts about him (and/or the OP) and it probably should have been left open if anyone had, but nobody did.

I agree that nonsense threads should have their place somewhere as long as the participants are enjoying them and keeping them alive. In the case of a Pit thread it isn't fair to keep a pitting of someone open as a general chit chat thread after the OP themselves chose to redact it. It also doesn't make sense to move it to another forum because the title and context still carry a direct, personal connection to some gripe between the OP and another board user, their username being the very subject of the thread.

[spinky]

It's pretty useless to get worked up over having a thread closed when the OP literally consisted solely of the text, "never mind."

It's also pretty useless to get worked up defending the choice to close the thread as if it's some sort of self-evident conclusion based on the super important rules of the SDMB.

In short: why don't you people argue about something more important, such as whether the administration should just say fuck it and give Czarcasm his job back.

[Bosstone]

There are so many contentless threads on this board to post in. Why fret over one?

[Becky2844]

I agree with Ellen. It was not appropriate for the Pit, and should have been closed or moved.

I don't agree with Czarcasm though. A content-less OP does not a content-less thread make. I thought the Spartacus riffs, while certainly not high comedy, were more than suitable to pass for content in MPSIMS, and unfortunately I've seen many many similar threads closed in that forum for the very same reason, no content, (although it's most usually phrased with the ever-so-delicate "too stupid to live.") But, in any case, I thought this thread was about discussing the rule in general for MPSIMS, and that rule in particular sucks the light-hearted fun out of a forum that is specifically designed for it. I for one have had several of my own threads closed for being too dumb, and it really juts my craw to see threads like Czarcasm's stupid and derivative corn thread allowed to live. I guess if I want to experiment with silly OPs, I'll have to wait for the next day it's ok to be silly, or be an ex-mod or something.

But I'm veering dangerously off-topic. This isn't about my posts. This is about a style of moderation that, while in line with the super-serious ivory tower demeanor of most of the board, is in direct conflict with the tone of the one forum where it's ok to be a silly shit. It is mildly irritating at best, and downright lame at worst. I can see if these types of threads dominated MPSIMS that it would be a problem, but I highly doubt they would, as most people, even when being silly, prefer to be silly about something. However, with that being said, sometimes the silliness rises directly because of a stupid OP, and right now these types of threads are being mod-shotgunned down before their prime.

But whatever. It's not a huge hairy deal either way. It never was and never will be, and that's why this particular rule, or moderation style, is never going to change. Shoehorn butterhorse, the end.

I agree. To say that some posters on this board don't get differential treatment is to veer from the truth. Some "junior mod," and some "bully--bust your balls." If we're going to be sticklers about the rules, what about "Don't be a jerk?" There are posters who get away with being snide/cruel because...they're just really, really smart?

Sometimes I'm amazed anybody new lingers here.

For any of us posters who do...if we happen to find a "fun puddle" (requiring leaps of mental agility) and choose to splash in it and you don't want to get wet, then simply stand back out of the spray.

Sometimes when people expound on why mud pies are dirty it just makes them a nanner nanner.

[BigT]

If you think my opinion is wrong, tell me why you think so.
If you think I'm junior modding, report me.

If you want people to treat you like a poster with an opinion, you can start posting like a poster with an opinion. It doesn't matter if your posts are technically within the rules. You are posting like you think you still have authority, and it is a good thing for someone to remind people that you don't have that authority.

Come on. Go look at your posts as a mod on this topic, and compare them with your posts in this thread. They are nearly exactly the same. The same belittling of other people's opinions. The same citation of a vague rule. The same forceful tone. The same desire to fight over it rather than let someone else who is better equipped to deal with complaints handle it.

And a very defining feature is the fact that mods won't argue with each other. Ellen just posted a completely different opinion to yours. She said the thread would have been okay in MPSIMS. Yet you haven't once argued with her. That's what a mere poster would do if a mod said something they didn't agree with. They wouldn't argue with the people who agree with the mod.

You may not technically be junior modding, but you are posting exactly as you did as a mod, and it is a good thing that someone is reminding everyone that you aren't one. If you don't like that, you can change your behavior and post opinions like they were opinions. And try not to stir up fights in ATMB like you did as a mod.

[bucketybuck]

We have all seen boards that are full of that crap, people throwing one liners back and forth blissfully unaware that they aren't half as funny as they think they are.

"Oh but we were having fun with it".

Frankly if thats your idea of fun, meaningless blather about nothing, then the mods are doing you a favour shutting it down. Close all those rubbish threads.

We aren't here to have fun.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Oh, boo-hoo. We want this MB to be a playground. Sorry, but you lose.

Good moderation, Miller. The Pit is the place for rants. There was not rant. Thread Closed. QED.

Start your mindless thread in MPSIMS. Don't expect every mindless thread to be moved there.

I understand your views in GD better now. Let's see:

Complete hostility at the other side. Good forbid anyone should have a different opinion.

Fail at using QED. You quoted something. Then made a Non sequitur, or atleast failed to demonstrate why the closure follows. There's plenty of examples of threads being moved for being the wrong place, rather than closed. Therefor you did not demonstrate why only closure follows. QED.

Then in your rage make a suggestion that has nothing to do with the issue. The thread didn't start with this intent, it just sort of formed. Given the thread apparently had value to people, why not move it and let them have it?

Finally, given what an uptight fun hating way you present yourself. I suggest you consult the services of a qualified arborist and proctologist in your area to get that stick removed. It's ruining your life man. We're worried about you.

[srzss05]

Here's a little test: Who here(besides the OP) can tell me what jali had in mind when he posted that thread?

What do I win if I tell?

[Czarcasm]

If you want people to treat you like a poster with an opinion, you can start posting like a poster with an opinion. It doesn't matter if your posts are technically within the rules. You are posting like you think you still have authority, and it is a good thing for someone to remind people that you don't have that authority.

Come on. Go look at your posts as a mod on this topic, and compare them with your posts in this thread. They are nearly exactly the same. The same belittling of other people's opinions. The same citation of a vague rule. The same forceful tone. The same desire to fight over it rather than let someone else who is better equipped to deal with complaints handle it.

And a very defining feature is the fact that mods won't argue with each other. Ellen just posted a completely different opinion to yours. She said the thread would have been okay in MPSIMS. Yet you haven't once argued with her. That's what a mere poster would do if a mod said something they didn't agree with. They wouldn't argue with the people who agree with the mod.

You may not technically be junior modding, but you are posting exactly as you did as a mod, and it is a good thing that someone is reminding everyone that you aren't one. If you don't like that, you can change your behavior and post opinions like they were opinions. And try not to stir up fights in ATMB like you did as a mod.My only response to posts like this is going to be that this thread isn't about me or the way I post, so I don't plan on joining in on the hijacking. I'm willing to talk about that when the thread's topic is about that.

[Scumpup]

You're just precious, aren't you?

[Czarcasm]

I have noticed that the person who started the thread in question and then changed her mind and decided to end the effort hasn't(as far as I know) registered any complaints about the way it was handled by the mods. Does this fact have any weight at all?

[Little Nemo]

I have noticed that the person who started the thread in question and then changed her mind and decided to end the effort hasn't(as far as I know) registered any complaints about the way it was handled by the mods. Does this fact have any weight at all?Are you still claiming this is all about the OP?

[kayT]

Czarcasm, I wonder if you could explain to me the difference between the thread in question and your "jimmy crack corn" thread linked above?

[Czarcasm]

Czarcasm, I wonder if you could explain to me the difference between the thread in question and your "jimmy crack corn" thread linked above?1. The "Jimmy crack corn" thread was a joke thread tying in with the other corn threads on April Fool's Day.
2. I didn't change my mind on posting content then abandon the thread, unlike the thread that is the topic of conversation here.

[PlainJain]

I have noticed that the person who started the thread in question and then changed her mind and decided to end the effort hasn't(as far as I know) registered any complaints about the way it was handled by the mods. Does this fact have any weight at all?
I have no idea how you read all of that into my frame of mind. Are you pouty that I have stopped responding to you? Nothing about my tone or intent indicated this was a hill I planned on dying on. This thread was a little grumble. I've said my piece - no use beating a dead horse. Everyone seems to get that but you.

[Batfish]

One of the traditions of the Pit is that when an OP steps on his/her dick he/she gets roasted in turn. OPs get blasted for all sorts of reasons including being weak.

The OP in question was so weak they withdrew their own post. The resulting posts were the mildest of razzes for the weakest of OPs.

That thread should have remained open. It would have faded away in short order. Miller's closing of it violated the back-and-forth nature of the Pit. Mod deserves a mild pursing of lips and shake of head for punishment.

[Czarcasm]

I have no idea how you read all of that into my frame of mind. Are you pouty that I have stopped responding to you? Nothing about my tone or intent indicated this was a hill I planned on dying on. This thread was a little grumble. I've said my piece - no use beating a dead horse. Everyone seems to get that but you.Did you really think my post was all about you? It wasn't.

[Cicero]

Did you really think my post was all about you? It wasn't.

Are you Carly Simon?

[srzss05]

I have no idea how you read all of that into my frame of mind. Are you pouty that I have stopped responding to you? Nothing about my tone or intent indicated this was a hill I planned on dying on. This thread was a little grumble. I've said my piece - no use beating a dead horse. Everyone seems to get that but you.

Just in case Czarcasm's post wasn't clear by now (since he got snippy instead of explaining), he was speaking of jali, the OP of the pit thread not the OP of this one.

[Czarcasm]

Just in case Czarcasm's post wasn't clear by now (since he got snippy instead of explaining), he was speaking of jali, the OP of the pit thread not the OP of this one.Thank you for the clarification.

[billfish678]

I wonder for these "gotta close em" threads, particularly the silly ones, how many people are a bit peeved they are closed vs how many were a bit peeved they wasted time opening them? I don't ever recall a mod saying something like "this thread is silly and I've gotten a couple dozen reports pissed about it so out it goes.."

Maybe the mods oughta edit the title to include something like [ed. silly time wasting thread, get a job you slackers] That way people could still be silly and anal retentive type A personalities could avoid wasting their time.

Oh, and I figure there are X number of posters round these here parts that have Y amount of time to waste here and Z amount of sillyness just waiting to get out. So, IMO silly threads tend to keep the sillyness out of OTHER threads.

[Czarcasm]

One of the traditions of the Pit is that when an OP steps on his/her dick he/she gets roasted in turn. OPs get blasted for all sorts of reasons including being weak.

The OP in question was so weak they withdrew their own post. The resulting posts were the mildest of razzes for the weakest of OPs.

That thread should have remained open. It would have faded away in short order. Miller's closing of it violated the back-and-forth nature of the Pit. Mod deserves a mild pursing of lips and shake of head for punishment.I can (maybe) see it as a very mild pitting of the OP. On the other hand,Pit threads have been closed or moved before because they were just too weak ass for the BBQ Pit. I wouldn't give it 50/50 for either closing or moving, but I would give it 75/25.

[Zeldar]

I wonder for these "gotta close em" threads, particularly the silly ones, how many people are a bit peeved they are closed vs how many were a bit peeved they wasted time opening them? I don't ever recall a mod saying something like "this thread is silly and I've gotten a couple dozen reports pissed about it so out it goes.."

Maybe the mods oughta edit the title to include something like [ed. silly time wasting thread, get a job you slackers] That way people could still be silly and anal retentive type A personalities could avoid wasting their time.

Oh, and I figure there are X number of posters round these here parts that have Y amount of time to waste here and Z amount of sillyness just waiting to get out. So, IMO silly threads tend to keep the sillyness out of OTHER threads.

To show how much I agree with these sentiments, take a look (perhaps a long look) at The truly great threads in SDMB history (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=508687) which had gotten 124 Posts between 03-01-2009, 09:31 AM and 05-03-2012, 04:24 PM.

Some of us love this type of nonsense, bullshit and craziness.

[PlainJain]

Just in case Czarcasm's post wasn't clear by now (since he got snippy instead of explaining), he was speaking of jali, the OP of the pit thread not the OP of this one.
Oh, OK. Thanks. Carry on then, my bad.

[Miller]

Sorry for stepping on the fun. I didn't have any objection to the thread, other than the fact that, the way it was going, it wasn't Pit material. Normally I'd have moved it to MPSIMS, but the thread had started as a pitting of another poster, and while the OP had scrubbed almost all the content from it, its title and provenance still communicated that Jali was pissed at Walmarticus for some reason. I felt that made moving it to MPSIMS inappropriate - that nascent fight between those two posters belonged either in the thread that originated the dispute, or in the Pit, not in MPSIMS - even if the thread itself had immediately gone off on a tangent.

[Cicero]

Not to worry. When all the fun stops from now on we have been "Millerised".

[Zeldar]

Sorry for stepping on the fun. I didn't have any objection to the thread, other than the fact that, the way it was going, it wasn't Pit material. Normally I'd have moved it to MPSIMS, but the thread had started as a pitting of another poster, and while the OP had scrubbed almost all the content from it, its title and provenance still communicated that Jali was pissed at Walmarticus for some reason. I felt that made moving it to MPSIMS inappropriate - that nascent fight between those two posters belonged either in the thread that originated the dispute, or in the Pit, not in MPSIMS - even if the thread itself had immediately gone off on a tangent.

As much as I enjoyed the frivolity in the Pit thread, I can find no fault with this logic. How would it be in future analogous situations (if there should ever be such) just to change the title to something even sillier than the Walmarticus one to something maybe like "Here's some nonsense for you to riff on"?

[John Mace]

It's a dumb policy that adds nothing to the board but takes away from it. And there's now a new pointless thread in MPSIMS as a direct result of this thread so you guys have actually increased the number of pointless threads here. Good job, brownie.

Yeah, closing that thread wasn't quite as bad the Bush administrations response to Katrina, but it was pretty close.

And there are "pointless" threads in MPSIMS? The horrors!! What does the "P" in that acronym stand for? Can you remind me again?

[PlainJain]

Sorry for stepping on the fun. I didn't have any objection to the thread, other than the fact that, the way it was going, it wasn't Pit material. Normally I'd have moved it to MPSIMS, but the thread had started as a pitting of another poster, and while the OP had scrubbed almost all the content from it, its title and provenance still communicated that Jali was pissed at Walmarticus for some reason. I felt that made moving it to MPSIMS inappropriate - that nascent fight between those two posters belonged either in the thread that originated the dispute, or in the Pit, not in MPSIMS - even if the thread itself had immediately gone off on a tangent.
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense now. Believe it or not, I spaced on the fact that the thread title was a poster here. I assumed it was a bad experience the OP had at the box store. So, good call after all.

[Ellen Cherry]

Just my modly 0.02 here, since I'm not a Pit mod and didn't close the thing — I would have closed such a thread in IMHO, but left it open in MPSIMS. Probably Marley would tell you the same thing. If people are having fun in MPSIMS, even though it was basically content-free, there's not a big problem there, to me, if people are being clever and having fun with it. But the other forums, eh, it's a bit of a problem. They're set up to discuss stuff, debate stuff, have questions answered, and blow off steam. If there's content-free threads allowed there, then we aren't really upholding the standards we set out to have.

Make sense?

I said Marley here when I should have said Miller. Sorry bout the mistake.

[Baal Houtham]

Miller made sense.

I didn't read the Walmaticus thread till it was linked here, and then enjoyed it and thought it ended too soon. Generally, contentless threads and free association don't make good reading and are a drag on discussion boards, so I wouldn't want to see them spread on SDMB. But, there are many things in life and on the internet that are interesting (and harmless) in small doses, but can easily be overdone.

My vote is that the thread should have been left open for another day or two, but eh, that seems a piddling thing. Hours, one day, two days -- probably doesn't matter much. Miller was there and closed it at his convenience.

[Cheshire Human]

never mind.

[John Mace]

never mind.

You're trying to get this thread closed, aren't you! :)

[Czarcasm]

You're trying to get this thread closed, aren't you! :)Or moved to MPSIMS.

[Cheshire Human]

You're trying to get this thread closed, aren't you! :)

Yes.









But seriously, I had something to say, but changed my mind, just like the OP of the thread in question. I didn't realize I had accidentally made a joke, although, granted, a poor one.

[Batfish]

...it wasn't Pit material. ...

At the risk of repeating myself, it was precisely Pit material. It was a weak OP being ridiculed for being weak.

[John Mace]

At the risk of repeating myself, it was precisely Pit material. It was a weak OP being ridiculed for being weak.

Speaking as one of the few people who actually read the original OP, yes, it was weak. Hence my response to it. But the OP obviously changed his mind and retracted it, leaving not a weak OP, but a non-existent one. His only mistake was not alerting a mod to close the thread.

It's obvious that a lot of people here just don't like moderated message boards. If there was a dearth of such message boards on the internet, that might be a point of view that would garner some sympathy. (This last part not directed at you, Batfish.)

[Bosstone]

As much as I enjoyed the frivolity in the Pit thread, I can find no fault with this logic. How would it be in future analogous situations (if there should ever be such) just to change the title to something even sillier than the Walmarticus one to something maybe like "Here's some nonsense for you to riff on"?Why should Miller assume that jali would have wanted to start a frivolous nonsense thread? Because that what it would go down in the archives as. Not a big deal, but at that point it's only a matter of degrees.

[Zeldar]

Why should Miller assume that jali would have wanted to start a frivolous nonsense thread? Because that what it would go down in the archives as. Not a big deal, but at that point it's only a matter of degrees.

The objective would be to move an active thread out of The Pit to MPSIMS. The OP as such was devoid of any point. The title could be changed to anything and the notion that Walmarticus had ever been mentioned (beyond the Spartacus and Walmart references) would have to be deduced.

All for the point of leaving a fun-and-games nonsense session open and moved to another forum -- if that were ever considered as worthy.

As for jali's involvement and culpability, I would propose that that was abandoned with the "nm" as an OP.

I suspect this tempest in a teacup may have spilled over into the uselessness saucer.

[samclem]

So, miller gets the props and votes in the mod contest, right? I hate that guy. No one ever says he's an asshole.

Ed, I want my vote back. ............ :D

[Darth Panda]

I have noticed that the person who started the thread in question and then changed her mind and decided to end the effort hasn't(as far as I know) registered any complaints about the way it was handled by the mods. Does this fact have any weight at all?

No.

[Red Barchetta]

I happen to think that getting a sense of what a thread is about by looking at the title is pretty damn handy...

I see that you need to be reminded of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=629867) of yours, once again.

But I agree: I too think it'd be nice if you followed your own advice.

[Darth Panda]

If the thread title was really the problem, they could have just changed it.

[The Great Sun Jester]

"What do threads like this hurt by being allowed to remain open?"Because pointless, frivilous threads create visual noise in the index and dilute the SDMB experience for everyone else.

IMHO people who show a propensity for posting such threads should be slathered in chocolate syrup and slapped with a live mackerel until they cry out the safety word (watermelon) repeatedly and sincerely. That would teach them.

[Morgenstern]

Because pointless, frivilous threads create visual noise in the index and dilute the SDMB experience for everyone else.

...

We've got to lobby to get the rule forcing people to read every thread changed.

Don't tell anyone, but I ignore threads all the time.

[Czarcasm]

If the thread title was really the problem, they could have just changed it.To what? What title would be appropriate for an OP that has basically no content at all?

[Acsenray]

Don't tell anyone, but I ignore threads all the time.

There's a difference between ignoring threads whose topics don't interest you and facing a forum cluttered with contentless threads. It's not a big deal to ignore threads now, because the rules and the moderation result in a system that make it reasonably clear what you're ignoring. But if threads like the one under discussion here are not killed, then you have a risk of a forum becoming more and more cluttered with obtuse nonsense. At some point, there will be enough junk threads so that it's no longer worth even looking at the forum to find something that might interest you.

[billfish678]

To what? What title would be appropriate for an OP that has basically no content at all?

"No meaningful content. Silly assed thread. Read at your own peril. Enter at your own risk. Getta job slackers."

How fracking hard was that?

And the ironic thing is it would have possibly gone for dozens of pages, been funny as shit, and gone down as one of the classics. "Walmarticus", the word, not the poster, is just ripe for funny material.

The powers that be's obsession with stomping silly threads is...well...silly. TMI about someone's bung hole hyperboles is okay in this high falutin internet fountain of knowledge but some random funny shit done by some pretty clever people might bring down the "class" of this place? :rolleyes:

I can see why THAT thread was closed due to the complications of it being a pit thread pitting and in particular one about a specific user. But this PTB feeling that we "can't have silly shit" is well, IMO sillly.

[Darth Panda]

To what? What title would be appropriate for an OP that has basically no content at all?

I would have went with:

Walmarticus - Go! (non-sequiturs follow)

[Miller]

At the risk of repeating myself, it was precisely Pit material. It was a weak OP being ridiculed for being weak.

The OP wasn't weak, it was absent entirely. I didn't read any of those posts as ridicule. It was just people goofing off and free associating off of an aborted rant. I don't think any of those posts were meant as commentary on the thread itself.

[Drunky Smurf]

So, miller gets the props and votes in the mod contest, right? I hate that guy. No one ever says he's an asshole.

Ed, I want my vote back. ............ :D

What? There was a Mod Contest? Man, if I had known I would have totally voted for you and not that other guy, whats-his-face.

[srzss05]

And the ironic thing is it would have possibly gone for dozens of pages, been funny as shit, and gone down as one of the classics.


That's pretty optimistic considering what was posted before it was closed...

Oh, and for the record, while I don't mind such threads being closed, I don't think they should automatically be closed either.