Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:14 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,993

About General Questions [complaint about a warning]


According to the forum description and the FAQ, GQ is about factual information.

How do posts that start with "I hope" fit in? Shouldn't that be in IMHO or MPSIMS?
  #2  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:26 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 38,240
Which thread would that be?
  #3  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:30 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,993
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...8&postcount=16
  #4  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:32 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Which thread would that be?
He's complaining about the fact that I gave him a warning here after two snarky and irrelevant pokes at other posters in GQ.

People are not prohibited from making non-factual remarks in GQ, and of course it would be impossible to moderate every such remark. They are, however, prohibited from being jerks to other posters, which is what the OP was warned for.
  #5  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:34 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,457
I edited the title to indicate what this is about.
  #6  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:44 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
People are not prohibited from making non-factual remarks in GQ, and of course it would be impossible to moderate every such remark.
Then please change the forum description. "I hope" is NOT factual information.
  #7  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:49 PM
zoid's Avatar
zoid is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 10,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Then please change the forum description. "I hope" is NOT factual information.
Neither was your reply
  #8  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:51 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
Neither was your reply
You're right. That's a fair criticism.
  #9  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:56 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 30,302
You could find a new hobby. You've been here 5+ years and still don't get how the place works?
  #10  
Old 01-21-2020, 10:56 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Then please change the forum description. "I hope" is NOT factual information.
It says the forum is for factual questions, not that every single statement in it has to be factual. And even if a statement is non-factual, that doesn't give you the right to attack the person making it.
  #11  
Old 01-21-2020, 11:12 PM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Then please change the forum description. "I hope" is NOT factual information.
I think the difference is that the "I hope..." poster wasn't also being a jerk.
  #12  
Old 01-22-2020, 05:40 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
It says the forum is for factual questions, not that every single statement in it has to be factual. And even if a statement is non-factual, that doesn't give you the right to attack the person making it.
And for the second time in two days I agree with you. My internet router definitely needs a firmware update.
  #13  
Old 01-22-2020, 06:48 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,710
To be fair, it took a while for me to "get it" when it comes to "General Questions". You can give an opinion if it pertains directly to the question and doesn't push some kind of personal agenda not pertaining directly to the question.

On the other hand, some people create posts in "GQ" that definitely belong in "Great Debates" or "IMHO" instead. Best thing to do then in my mind is ask that they be moved.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #14  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:04 AM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 9,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
On the other hand, some people create posts in "GQ" that definitely belong in "Great Debates" or "IMHO" instead.
It can be ludicrous. "Which is better: Pepsi or Coke?" Then you actually get a series of painstaking "objective" explanations until the forum gets changed.
  #15  
Old 01-22-2020, 09:37 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,457
Expressing opinions in GQ mainly becomes a problem when it leads to a hijack or debate, or a thread becomes just a bunch of anecdotes or opinions. In such cases, a mod may either instruct that the hijack be dropped (if there is reason to expect that further factual information may be presented), or the thread may be moved to Great Debates or IMHO as circumstances warrant.
  #16  
Old 01-22-2020, 10:02 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,465
No complaints about the warning but weeding out of the constant stream of IMHO glurge in GQ would be appreciated, including that "I hope" post.
  #17  
Old 01-22-2020, 11:57 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,231
I think part of the charm of GQ is that you get actual people talking about the topic, rather than a dry "just the facts, ma'am" answer or webpage link.

In a thread about sensory issues, people mention their own sensory issues, even if it doesn't answer the specific question, it does provide a broader appreciation for the topic at large.
  #18  
Old 01-22-2020, 12:02 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I think part of the charm of GQ is that you get actual people talking about the topic, rather than a dry "just the facts, ma'am" answer or webpage link.

In a thread about sensory issues, people mention their own sensory issues, even if it doesn't answer the specific question, it does provide a broader appreciation for the topic at large.
We have an entire forum dedicated sharing personal stories. Nobody is stopping them from posting there.
  #19  
Old 01-22-2020, 12:05 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 36,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
You could find a new hobby. You've been here 5+ years and still don't get how the place works?
He's been trying to change how the place works since his fifth post or so.
  #20  
Old 01-22-2020, 12:48 PM
BubbaDog's Avatar
BubbaDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: KC MO or there abouts
Posts: 5,782
Well, if we're going to severely restrict the GQ from having non-factual information, from having some opinions or even humor leak in with the truth,

then let's go back and get all of Cecil's columns edited to reflect that. We can purify not only this board but also the source that eventually evolved into this board.
  #21  
Old 01-22-2020, 01:09 PM
SmellMyWort is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Then please change the forum description. "I hope" is NOT factual information.
Maybe you should start a Pit thread to rant about it. I'm sure lots of posters will be happy to contribute in one way or another.
  #22  
Old 01-22-2020, 05:21 PM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 16,077
Whoa! There's another factor to consider that everybody, moderator included, seems to be forgetting or not mentioning (although Colibri hints at it in Post #15):

We have an established convention that GQ threads must remain strictly factual and on-topic until the initial question has been adequately answered or until a dozen-or-so responses have been posted, whichever comes first. After that, threads are allowed to meander (within some vaguely-moderator-defined limits).

Is that rule not still the rule?

Seems to me, I've been seeing more frequent moderator interventions (mostly mod notes, occasional warnings) when GQ (or even other) threads meander off-topic or get into IMHO territory in GQ threads, even when the above criteria have been met, even when the resulting conversation remains civil and (in some people's opinions) interesting. It seems a shame to have those conversations squelched under these circumstances, but I see that happening a lot. (Sorry, no examples right at hand; this is just my impression.)

I thought D'Anconia's remarks were borderline snarky (probably not enough to be moddable except for his established history of being snarky). But his complaint that other posts were IMHO doesn't hold up, and the IMHO nature of his own posts should also be acceptable at that point in the thread.
  #23  
Old 01-22-2020, 05:49 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
Is that rule not still the rule?
Pretty much. Though if no factual responses have been submitted after a dozen posts I'm likely to boot it over to IMHO.

Quote:
Seems to me, I've been seeing more frequent moderator interventions (mostly mod notes, occasional warnings) when GQ (or even other) threads meander off-topic or get into IMHO territory in GQ threads, even when the above criteria have been met, even when the resulting conversation remains civil and (in some people's opinions) interesting. It seems a shame to have those conversations squelched under these circumstances, but I see that happening a lot. (Sorry, no examples right at hand; this is just my impression.)
I believe your impression is wrong. At least, I haven't changed my moderation practice regarding this.
  #24  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:19 PM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
I thought D'Anconia's remarks were borderline snarky (probably not enough to be moddable except for his established history of being snarky). But his complaint that other posts were IMHO doesn't hold up, and the IMHO nature of his own posts should also be acceptable at that point in the thread.
I disagree, and apparently so does Colibri. I found aruqvan's and Llama Llogophile's to be at least related to the topic. aruqvan was sharing personal experience with being sensory sensitive, and Llama Llogophile's post was expressing a related desire for more sensory friendly environments.

Whereas D'Anconia was making personal jabs at other posters, not relating to the issue of the thread at all. He wasn't modded for posting opinions in a GQ thread, he was modded for being a jerk.
  #25  
Old 01-25-2020, 02:50 PM
Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 13,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Pretty much. Though if no factual responses have been submitted after a dozen posts I'm likely to boot it over to IMHO...
On this, if I may, let me fine-tune the the mods' practice in GQ which I particularly like and which shows respect to the forum: a mod will clear his throat, so to speak, if the _first_ reply to an acceptable OP is along the lines of the otherwise permitted and engaging "non-factual" commentary from the bleachers permitted to an extent, including even [!] some sequential badinage. (But not persiflage. I think. Will go look the word up now).

The worst that you can say about that policy, based on personal experience, is when you're dying to make a funny and have to restrain yourself for moment or two.
  #26  
Old 01-26-2020, 11:37 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic Pig Detective View Post
So people are allowed to make non-factual remarks, but I got a warning for making a factual one?
It's been explained why you got a warning. It wasn't for making a factual remark.

Moderator Instructions

Your complaint has been fully addressed in your original thread, which is now closed. Do not bring up this warning again. In particular, do not bump other threads on other subjects to complain about it, and do not start another thread about it. Violation of these instructions may result in another warning.

Colibri

This is closed.

Last edited by Colibri; 01-26-2020 at 03:21 PM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017