Can we get a rule in GQ about patently obvious questions?

[twickster]

@Gary "Wombat" Robson

As a GQ moderator, most of these don’t bother me, because they can generate some fascinating discussions. Look at the thread on whether Quebecois is a separate language from French. The OP could have just looked at the official government website for Quebec, seen that they called their language “French,” and not asked the question. But we’ve had 60+ posts in that thread, and people seem to be enjoying the discussion.

Yeah, but I think that is a significantly different example than “What is Firefox,” which is what the OP cited (and which had everyone who saw it rolling their eyes).

twickster, speaking as a member here, not a moderator

[Dead_Cat]

@Colibri

Actually, although Jinx was notorious for such questions when he first appeared here (when he was a teenager), he hasn’t been that bad lately. I just did a cursory check of the titles of the 195 threads he has started in GQ in the past 24 months, and most of them don’t seem particularly out of line.

At least one counterexample recently appeared in The Game Room, along the lines of “In Ice Hockey, is it legal for the puck to leave the ice?”. I’m sure I’ve seen one or two other recent ones as well.

Not a big issue for me, just pointing out some evidence. I usually just roll my eyes and move on.

[Gary_Robson]

@twickster

Yeah, but I think that is a significantly different example than “What is Firefox,” which is what the OP cited (and which had everyone who saw it rolling their eyes).

That’s why I said “most.” I agree with you on that particular thread.

[Erasmus_Darwin]

@Colibri

Actually, although Jinx was notorious for such questions when he first appeared here (when he was a teenager), he hasn’t been that bad lately. I just did a cursory check of the titles of the 195 threads he has started in GQ in the past 24 months, and most of them don’t seem particularly out of line.

Fair enough. Between my preconceptions based on his past behavior and the recent egregious Firefox thread, my perception of him may have been a little skewed.

[CaveMike]

I, for one, prefer the light-handed moderating approach being used in GQ. It is not that important to me that the rules be enforced rigorously to ensure that every GQ question fits some level of criteria.

@Dead_Cat

At least one counterexample recently appeared in The Game Room, along the lines of “In Ice Hockey, is it legal for the puck to leave the ice?”. I’m sure I’ve seen one or two other recent ones as well.

I knew the answer to the OP, but I didn’t know everything that Critical Mass mentioned. And that is ignoring the value of the giant-goalie-hijack.

It seems like the title is obvious enough to warn hockey fans: 'Skip this thread, there is nothing interesting for you here." It’s not like the title was “Hockey fanactics! Please help with this ruling!”

[Ellen_Cherry]

Also speaking as a member, not a moderator re: Jinx —

195 threads he has started in GQ in the past 24 months,

I feel I can say with some certainty that I haven’t started 195 threads in the 10 YEARS I’ve been here.

[Washoe]

@Gary "Wombat" Robson

As a GQ moderator, most of these don’t bother me, because they can generate some fascinating discussions. Look at the thread on whether Quebecois is a separate language from French. The OP could have just looked at the official government website for Quebec, seen that they called their language “French,” and not asked the question. But we’ve had 60+ posts in that thread, and people seem to be enjoying the discussion.

An even better example is “what’s in Doan’s Pills?” Even I had a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of “oh criminy—go to the manufacturer’s web page, look it up on wiki, or go knock on your next door neighbor’s door and ask him if he has a freakin’ bottle.” However, after reading the thread I was compelled to go out and buy a bottle and give it a shot next time my back gives me crampy grief. In the past year I’ve saved hundreds of dollars on Nasonex thanks to QtM’s enthusiastic advocacy of nasal irrigation. Instead of using it every day, I can usually get by with just two or three uses a week, and sometimes even less. Ignorance fought is all well and good, but unless we can at least occasionally derive some practical benefit from it, our time on the SDMB might very well be better spent cruising the web for some good pygmy-on-goat porn or finding the ultimate recipe for beer can chicken.

[samclem]

@Ellen_Cherry

Also speaking as a member, not a moderator re: Jinx —

I feel I can say with some certainty that I haven’t started 195 threads in the 10 YEARS I’ve been here.

That’s probably because you know practically all the answers to all the mysteries of life.

[samclem]

@Washoe

Ignorance fought is all well and good, but unless we can at least occasionally derive some practical benefit from it, our time on the SDMB might very well be better spent cruising the web for some good pygmy-on-goat porn or finding the ultimate recipe for beer can chicken.

Why do you hate pygmy-on-goat porn?

[Colibri]

@samclem

That’s probably because you know practically all the answers to all the mysteries of life.

I’ve started 41 in 10 years.

[Una_Persson]

Can someone explain the “giant goalie hijack” to me in less than 13 words?

[Lord_Mondegreen]

@Una_Persson

Can someone explain the “giant goalie hijack” to me in less than 13 words?

Could a really fat goalie make scoring impossible for the other team? (12 words)

[Una_Persson]

@Lord_Mondegreen

Could a really fat goalie make scoring impossible for the other team? (12 words)

Thank you, and that makes perfect sense; it’s a textbook SDMB circle-jerk question.

[Washoe]

@samclem

Why do you hate pygmy-on-goat porn?

You misunderstood me. I’m not opposed to it at all. However, being Armenian, I’d prefer seeing a little sheep action.

[Colibri]

@Washoe

I’d prefer seeing a little sheep action.

It’s easier for the pygmy if the sheep is little.

[Jake]

Maybe just answer with a “GQR4” (General Questions…