Yes, it’s a problem, but really the OP itself caused the problem: the title of the OP started with “Atheist getting married in Catholic church”. If people don’t want side issues discussed, they really should not make them the most prominent part of the thread. A better title would have been “Need help with readings for marriage in Catholic church”. (But of course, it’s too late for that now).
I thought the thread title was pretty integral to the post. He wasn’t just looking for readings, but specifically readings that would be agreeable to an atheist and that were light on the God stuff.
That’s true – but it could have been in the text, where the “atheist” bit could have been modified too, since the OP was brought up Catholic and is still nominally a Catholic.
I thought the modding a little premature and heavy handed. Given the way the OP chose to phrase his post, he should have expected the type of responses/questions he received. And IMO the questions/comments were pretty mild and entirely appropriate for IMHO.
It seems pretty common that threads posted in just about every forum can go off on tangents different than what the OP may have wished or expected. Has happened to me more than once. And I was not aware of a regular practice of mods issuing pre-emptive warnings as occurred in this thread.
The OP asked a pretty simple question. Why he and his future spouse choose to get married in a church is no one’s business. Everything anyone needed to know was in the first post already.
I’m not opposed to a bit of thread drift at all but there’s no obligation for the OP to answer prying questions.
I only posted once in that thread, fairly innocuously, but I have been a magnet for this sort of thing lately. Not from Czarcasm, though I wouldn’t be surprised if my mere appearance in a thread is setting off mod alarms these days.
To the extend that it is, I maintain it is all overkill, but when the mod tells me via PM that threads from about 9 months ago are part of the reason he is modding me now, and that I oughta keep an eye out specifically in threads that go off topic, that in effect, it makes a guy paranoid.
So if it was in any part me that drew the mod to the thread, sorry to all the rest of you.
Deosn’t appear too many folk are interested, but I think the latest developments in the OT are especially bullshit.
After czarcasm (IMO unnecessarily) came in and slapped all of us mean responders on the wrist and threatened sanctions against anyone who diverged from czar’s narrow interpretation of the OP, the OPer chose to engage in the discussion that several of us apparently considered the most interesting aspect of his OP.
In my view, that seems like the OPer accepted the broadened scope of the thread he began. When I asked if that were the case - so as not to risk mod action against me - czar responded that he thinks the OP did a fine job of “clarifying” his OP, and that no additional discussion was appropriate - at least in IMHO.
I consider this unfortunate in many respects. It would be completely different if the OP had asked that the thread be closed. Or if he had chosen to hide behind czar’s skirts and avoid explaining his choices which struck many of us as odd.
But the OPer did neither of those. Instead, he chose to engage the discussion within the context of his original thread, volunteering more information directly relevant to portions of his OP. In response to which czar decides to end discussion, preventing anyone from responding in the original thread - no matter how respectfully they wished to express their opinion?
For crying out fucking loud, what delicate little flowers are we that we need to be sheltered in this manner? Am I to expect similar mod action every time I post something specific about my family and someone choses to jump in and observe what crappy parents my wife and I are? Or any time a thread is taken in a slightly different direction than the OPer may have expected or desired? And whether or not the OPer expresses a wish that discussion be so restricted?
Dins, you are absolutely right, they seem to claim psychic visions of what the OP wants, and should even the OP say it is ok, they just tell him he is wrong. That is nuts but I saw that, they need to just stay out of threads unless there is a big fight or spam, we ought be able to have free discussions. There certainly were many issues to discuss with a thread title like that.
The reason for the title was explained by the OP in the initial post, and clarified in a later post. The “problem” was caused by those who couldn’t handle his explanation and/or those who think that Rightious Indignation excuses them from following IMHO protocols. Y’all were asked to take the side topic elsewhere(Great Debates) because that particular hijack imho would have made a good, but separate, thread.
Not one of you did this.
Seriously, Czarcasm, that post by PunditLisa was on topic: it’s all about the choice of text, and not about an atheist marrying in a Catholic church. The bit about “brimstone and hellfire” was saying that a Catholic wedding isn’t going to have bits about b&h included, and she’s surprised that anyone would think they were.
I think you’ve become a tad overzealous in trying to prevent the thread-jacking here.
The idea has to be to kill the discussion, period. Was this moderation asked for? Why is one post about a bible verse so terrible? If the OP asked the mod to leave, would that work to allow discussion again? What does a poster have to do to allow free discussion here, anyway?
I acknowledge my ignorance, but exactly what IMHO “protocols” were not followed?
I didn’t see much - if any - righteous indignation, merely understandable questioning WRT a necessary element of the OP.
So we are only free to set out HO’s on topics ranging from chocolate cake to puppy dogs?
You think it fine to simply say “take that aspect of the discussion elsewhere.” I, at least, think that something is necessarily lost by bifurcating that from the OP, and subjecting the discussion to the standards of a forum other than IMHO.
You were unnecessarily overzealous in this instance. Which is certainly your right as a mod. But just because you can doesn’t make it suck any less.
So, you make one post in which you signify that it is in your official capacity as a moderator. Thereafter, you express another post, expressing what appears to be an opinion, and without making any reference to acting as a mod.
I simply inquired which it was. I wanted to know if you were (extremely clumsily) reiterating your previous moderator notice, or instead, rescinding it and engaging in the discussion that the majority of folk in that thread appeared to want.
You are seriously saying that to ask such a question I need to start a new thread in ATMB? And you decline to even respond to my question?
What is so fragile here that your actions in that thread are required or desired?
I don’t have any problems with any of Czarcasm’s other actions in this thread, but this warning did make me go because it seemed that Lisa was ignoring the side-issue/hijack and addressing the OP’s question about appropriate readings pretty directly.
Right. Specially since post #66 had already gotten a free pass and it had nothing to do with readings but was just attacking the OP’s decision to marry in a church. The moderated post was basically the same as post #68 saying “if it is fire and brimstone you don’t want in your readings, then don’t worry as most of the standard readings are light on that stuff”.
because it seemed that Lisa was ignoring the side-issue/hijack and addressing the OP’s question about appropriate readings pretty directly.