BS moderating.

[Red_Barchetta]

@Colibri

In enforcing them, I don’t go by what title is under a poster’s name.

Unless it says “moderator,” right?

[Sparky812]

@R.P.McMurphy

When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.

Wow! This is one of the attitudes I find sickening, the entitlement of some posters based on their status or join date or the “noob” treatment of other posters.

Funny thing is,** handsomeharry** joined almost a year before **R.P. Murphy, **you don’t see him appealing to the mods about preferential treatment.

[MsWhatsit]

@R.P.McMurphy

When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.

Ugh. I wouldn’t hope that and I’m glad to see the mods agree.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Shodan

I will mention also that saying Bill Clinton is not known for his commitment to the truth is not a political jab - it is a factual statement, and entirely appropriate to GQ.

Regards,
Shodan

Horsepucky. Your claim is widely disputed. While Clinton’s testimony with regards to blowjobs was evasive, one example does not make a pattern, especially since he was dealing with a criminal prosecutorial team – one who made a habit of breaking the law by leaking grand jury testimony.

@Colibri

R. P. McMurphy’s initial post constituted both threadshitting and junior modding. It might have drawn a mod note even in the absence of subsequent posts.

Emphasis added to for clarity. I agree it was borderline. However, I thought the gist of the initial comment was appropriate to GQ. Now I mostly don’t care what rules they set here, provided they broadly serve the fight against ignorance. I’ll adapt or go away - my choice. Still, I’d like to discuss threads------g in greater detail.

The concept emerged after Cafe Society was instituted. Here’s a 2002 pit thread that discussed the idea, which had yet to be named. I was one of the targets. As I see it the problem with threads------g is that it
[ul]
[li]can result in thread derailment and[/li][li]rains on people’s parades.[/li][/ul] Thread derailment is a real issue, albeit one that I think can be managed. Parade raining is also a real issue in Cafe Society and MPSIMS. But I think substantive comments on the premise of a GQ OP are appropriate. Same for IMHO. To rule them off bounds risks compromising the fight against ignorance.

Ok, let’s turn to the application.

@R. P. McMurphy

Stay out of other people’s marriages.

Managing one’s own is difficult enough. Bill and Hillary are both very ambitious people and that has worked out for both of them. It seems that the marriage contract that they have between each other (whatever that is) has served to benefit both of them. They probably have a great deal of admiration for each other have worked it out between them. That’s their business and none of ours.

The Gore’s looked like the ideal couple while the Clinton’s looked like a divorce in the waiting. Which marriage has survived? It seems to tell me that on some level the Clinton’s have a basic mutual respect for each other and want to stay together for whatever their reasons are. I would think that if they were going to divorce it would have happened by now.

It’s really none of our business.

That strikes me as something that needs to be said in such a thread. Now the OP demurred, and R. P. McMurphy escalated the situation, when he probably should have taken the opposite tack. And it would have been better if he didn’t start with a 2nd person command (although frankly it doesn’t look like Jr Modding to me – he doesn’t imply that any rules are being broken and the command seemed pretty rhetorical). To put this operationally, questioning the premise of a GQ, GD or IMHO OP seems acceptable and possibly helpful, although care should be taken not to derail the thread or create the impression that one is trying to shut it down. I am not a moderator: that is my proposal and perception, not a rule. It is of course debatable.
FInally:
Sorta odd having these 2 rules buried in “A Beginner’s Guide to Glossary of Terms on Straight Dope Message Boards”, ya?

[Colibri]

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Ok, let’s turn to the application. That strikes me as something that needs to be said in such a thread. Now the OP demurred, and R. P. McMurphy escalated the situation, when he probably should have taken the opposite tack. And it would have been better if he didn’t start with a 2nd person command (although frankly it doesn’t look like Jr Modding to me – he doesn’t imply that any rules are being broken and the command seemed pretty rhetorical). To put this operationally, questioning the premise of a GQ, GD or IMHO OP seems acceptable and possibly helpful, although care should be taken not to derail the thread or create the impression that one is trying to shut it down. I am not a moderator: that is my proposal and perception, not a rule. It is of course debatable.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it needed to be said, and I think the fact that it was said at all was due to R. P. McMurphy’s personal opinions about marriage rather than anything problematic about the OP per se. Operationally, questioning the premise of a thread happens all the time in GQ and is par for the course. But in this case RPM was suggesting that the question shouldn’t be asked at all for moral reasons, and has indicated that he thought it should have been locked.

@Measure_for_Measure

Horsepucky. Your claim is widely disputed. While Clinton’s testimony with regards to blowjobs was evasive, one example does not make a pattern, especially since he was dealing with a criminal prosecutorial team – one who made a habit of breaking the law by leaking grand jury testimony.

This is ATMB. Let’s not get into a debate about Clinton here. As I’ve pointed out above, the veracity of Shodan’s post is not pertinent to whether it constituted a political jab.

[crypto]

Kudos to **Colibri **for handling the entire issue well. I once again marvel at the length that people will go, the time they will spend, on some message board slight. I also marvel at the patience of the mods, who aren’t paid to be patient and wonder what motivates them to continue to do the job.

@R.P.McMurphy

When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.

From my personal POV, I found the question a good one, even if you want to debate which forum it belonged in. I was just thinking about this subject last week, forgot about it, and saw the OP and popped in. They are public figures, and she is the current SoS. I think asking the question is legitimate, even if you don’t.

With that said, you had a right to report the thread. But to post your personal views on why asking about the status of the Clinton’s marriage (or any marriage, according to you) was wrong was just… bizarre. For the life of me, I still can’t figure out why something would have put you in such a state.

@R.P.McMurphy

As to my situation, I am in a long term marriage. I was responding from many, many years of experience. I’ve been through “better or worse”, I’ve been through “richer or poorer”, now I’m deep into “sickness and in health” and hope to make it to “until death do us part”. But you never know. Over sensitive and over reactive? Maybe. Stay out of speculating on my marriage and I promise not to analyze anyone else’s marriage, celebrity or otherwise.

Just a question… why on earth does your current marital status matter? No one was speculating on your marriage. In fact, until your reaction, I’ll wager almost no one on this board knew of your marital status. Nor did they care. Most people don’t come out to a public message board to probe into the lives of other posters. You’ve decided to volunteer information about your marriage to prove your point, but I simply don’t get the point you are making. I didn’t see anyone asking for your marital run down, and the fact that you are married or not, happy or not, was not being speculated on. Thanks for your pledge not to analyze anyone else’s marriage. However, if this were true, you shouldn’t have even entered the thread in the first place.

@Colibri

This is ATMB. Let’s not get into a debate about Clinton here. As I’ve pointed out above, the veracity of Shodan’s post is not pertinent to whether it constituted a political jab.

Bingo. A simple rule to follow. Taking jabs at Clinton (either one) is just a waste of time, and the discourse is predictable.
Maybe there is something else going on with some of you, but please… for your own sanity, blood pressure, and all around general health, try taking a day or two away from the boards. Spend some time with your kids. Or a pet. Or your favorite hobby. You may find that you can live without the boards all together. And as we’ve seen with the departure of a number of prolific posters, the board will go on.

[kidchameleon]

@Colibri

This is ATMB. Let’s not get into a debate about Clinton here.

Did he get banned?

[Darth_Panda]

@kidchameleon

Did he get banned?

I believe he was disbarred.

[Shodan]

@Darth_Panda

I believe he was disbarred.

Reported.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan_Ekers]

@R.P.McMurphy

I’ve been married (my only marriage) to the same person for multiple decades. I know something about the dynamic of marriage and how it is really only between the two partners.

Well, I’ve been insulting people for multiple decades, so I know something about the dynamic of insultage and how you created an obviously public incident.
I guess now I’ll go read the thread in question, for the sake of thoroughness.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Moderator inserts:
Please note: we have no rules here about making insults directed at celebrities or political figures or other persons of note. Our rules are about not insulting OTHER POSTERS. Unless/until Mr Clinton becomes a poster here, discussion about him is pretty much irrelevant.