# Can we have a new rule in GD **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 28, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933 "2015-10-28T03:59:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/101 "2015-10-29T16:41:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And I’m certainly sure that if you come up with, and report, this supposed “long-term pattern of behavior” to the many good moderators here, they will most certainly do the right thing. What do you think that “right thing” would be? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/102 "2015-10-29T16:50:57Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > What do you think that “right thing” would be? That was your cue to come up with the goods, bucky. Nice fail, but keep trying to apply that label anyway. edited to add: As far as what the “right thing” would be-not my call. I haven’t been a mod for a very long time, and I don’t communicate with them. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/103 "2015-10-29T16:54:40Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I think the world can handle a little Atheist witnessing. Go nuts! Just don’t hijack existing threads with it. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/104 "2015-10-29T17:25:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That was your cue to come up with the goods, bucky. Nice fail, but keep trying to apply that label anyway. Do you think this fits the new “low-snark” paradigm for ATMB? > [@](#): > > edited to add: As far as what the “right thing” would be-not my call. I haven’t been a mod for a very long time, and I don’t communicate with them. Are you unwilling to speculate on what the right thing _might_ be? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/105 "2015-10-29T17:29:01Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Do you think this fits the new “low-snark” paradigm for ATMB? > Are you unwilling to speculate on what the right thing _might_ be? I couldn’t begin to speculate on what an unnamed moderator might do about an unspecified infraction, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/106 "2015-10-29T19:16:27Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Once again, I’m not against their participationof atheists. They are welcome to participate as long as they keep it on topic. > > The rule would only cover threadshitting, Then how would it differ from the general rule against threadshitting? I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds as though you are proposing an anti-threadshitting rule specifically for religion threads. I can’t see how any behavior that would transgress that rule would not also transgress the wider threadshitting rule. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/107 "2015-10-29T19:42:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Could you show me where in the “Heaven” thread I am exhibiting this supposed problem? I didn’t call it a problem. I did not say you were problematic. I simply said that you’re posting in many threads that you’re an Atheist and/or some other thing(s) representative of an Atheist POV. I have no problem with what you believe or don’t believe. If you want to witness for Atheism, so be it, but doing it in a thread where someone is genuinely interested in a religious tenet…etc.etc.etc. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/108 "2015-10-29T20:06:55Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I didn’t call it a problem. I did not say you were problematic. I simply said that you’re posting in many threads that you’re an Atheist and/or some other thing(s) representative of an Atheist POV. > > I have no problem with what you believe or don’t believe. If you want to witness for Atheism, so be it, but doing it in a thread where someone is genuinely interested in a religious tenet…etc.etc.etc. Once again, I would like to see an example of what you call “Atheist Winessing” that I supposedly do so often, either in the most current thread, or any of the recent religious threads in GD. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/109 "2015-10-29T20:10:31Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > If you want to witness for Atheism, so be it, but doing it in a thread where someone is genuinely interested in a religious tenet…etc.etc.etc. Or, maybe, a simpler solution would be to post closed religious topics in IMHO or MPSIMS instead of in the - debate - section of this website ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/110 "2015-10-29T21:43:32Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Or, maybe, a simpler solution would be to post closed religious topics in IMHO or MPSIMS instead of in the - debate - section of this website I’m sorry if this has come up in this thread and I missed it, but what are “closed topics” and are they restricted to IMHO and MPSIMS? Is a discussion on bra sizes a closed topic? Is making a (good or stupid) attempt at a funny about boobs – a post by a woman or man, BTW – not only “being a jerk” but theeadshitting? Or is that because certain topics, due to whatever claims interested parties have of “not being constantly ‘disrupted’ by people Who Don’t Get It”–which may include in some amorphous mod decisions (I’m not sure, maybe it is not amorphous) that what applies to whatever the hell class threads on bra sizing is, but not Christian ideas of heaven? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/111 "2015-10-29T22:04:53Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > I’m sorry if this has come up in this thread and I missed it, but what are “closed topics” and are they restricted to IMHO and MPSIMS? > > Is a discussion on bra sizes a closed topic? Is making a (good or stupid) attempt at a funny about boobs – a post by a woman or man, BTW – not only “being a jerk” but theeadshitting? Or is that because certain topics, due to whatever claims interested parties have of “not being constantly ‘disrupted’ by people Who Don’t Get It”–which may include in some amorphous mod decisions (I’m not sure, maybe it is not amorphous) that what applies to whatever the hell class threads on bra sizing is, but not Christian ideas of heaven? Closed Topic was my own self invented term… From what I understand, IMHO and MPSIMS have less strict standards in terms or “verifying your claim” and the also have higher standards of civility. GD and GC (General Questions) are for more fact based/serious kind of topics. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/112 "2015-10-29T22:42:16Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Then how would it differ from the general rule against threadshitting? > > I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds as though you are proposing an anti-threadshitting rule specifically for religion threads. I can’t see how any behavior that would transgress that rule would not also transgress the wider threadshitting rule. We’ve got a rule against being a jerk. Why do we need one against threadshitting? I can’t see how any behavior that would transgress the threadshitting rule would not also transgress the wider rule against being a jerk. The point is that it’s a specific form of threadshitting that seems to occur frequently, and often doesn’t get moderated. I suggest a specific rule against this specific behaviour. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/113 "2015-10-29T23:12:36Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > We’ve got a rule against being a jerk. Why do we need one against threadshitting? I can’t see how any behavior that would transgress the threadshitting rule would not also transgress the wider rule against being a jerk. > > The point is that it’s a specific form of threadshitting that seems to occur frequently, and often doesn’t get moderated. I suggest a specific rule against this specific behaviour. Fair point. But it still doesn’t explain why you think we need a specific rule for a specific sort of threadshitting. If you thought that certain posters were threadshitting in the Christian heaven thread, why didn’t you just hit the “Report” button and let the mods sort it out? Threadshitting is threadshitting; what’s so special about religion threads that they need their own iteration of that rule? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/114 "2015-10-29T23:14:32Z")
Czarcasm - You most definitely do have a long term pattern of behavior. I see it in thread after thread. You ask posters to substantiate or clarify vague or dubious claims. [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773171&page=2), in post 87 and 89, where you question Robert163. [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773528), where you ask for clarification of a 1 sentence OP. [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773518) when you asked a poster to summarize a five minute video that he linked to. All within the past couple of days. Of course that’s what we’re here for. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/115 "2015-10-29T23:27:20Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Czarcasm - You most definitely do have a long term pattern of behavior. I see it in thread after thread. You ask posters to substantiate or clarify vague or dubious claims. Have you also noticed him asking questions about obvious, self-evident things? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/116 "2015-10-30T00:32:55Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Have you also noticed him asking questions about obvious, self-evident things? Honestly, at worst I interpret his behavior as pointed questioning, though “Somewhat testy” would be a better characterization in my view. At any rate, I am highly dubious about the jabs he gets in ATMB, seeing as nobody has bothered to open a pit thread on the guy, complete with examples. As I see it, if you have a beef with a poster, first take it to the pit. After a couple of pittings you can then consider complaining to the mods. Yeah, yeah there are exceptions for clear rule breaking. But I don’t see that here. At all. As an example, Der was pitted several times before people started lobbying for his banning or at least curbs on his behavior. That’s how it should work. I believe Czarcasm’s posting style is helpful. I also think it isn’t all that difficult to respond to, though doing so usually involves clarification and adjustment. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/117 "2015-10-30T01:02:18Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Honestly, at worst I interpret his behavior as pointed questioning, though “Somewhat testy” would be a better characterization in my view. At any rate, I am highly dubious about the jabs he gets in ATMB, seeing as nobody has bothered to open a pit thread on the guy, complete with examples. > > … Do you really think anyone is invested in Czarcasm’s behavior to the point that they would spend the time necessary to compose, document and edit said thread. Using that little red triangle in the future will be so much easier. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/118 "2015-10-30T01:05:42Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > If you thought that certain posters were threadshitting in the Christian heaven thread, why didn’t you just hit the “Report” button and let the mods sort it out? Since there isn’t any specific rule against it, I didn’t think reporting it would have any effect. If my proposed rule is accepted, I would be able to report future problems for something specific. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/119 "2015-10-30T01:11:17Z")
To be clear - since I apparently wasn’t before - your proposed rule will not be adopted. If you think someone is disrupting a thread use the report button. Existing rules are sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/120 "2015-10-30T01:33:38Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Czarcasm - You most definitely do have a long term pattern of behavior. I see it in thread after thread. You ask posters to substantiate or clarify vague or dubious claims. [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773171&page=2), in post 87 and 89, where you question Robert163. [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773528), where you ask for clarification of a 1 sentence OP. [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773518) when you asked a poster to summarize a five minute video that he linked to. All within the past couple of days. > > Of course that’s what we’re here for. In the first two examples, I am _defending_ against a ridiculously tight definition of “Christian”(Oh! How devious can an atheist get!), and the other two examples have nothing at all to do with Christianity, atheism or even religion in general. In fact, in that last example, I was only one among many to point out that he needed to pad out his post a bit more. Are you going to admonish the moderator for closing the thread for that very reason? I’ve seen weak sauce before, but this crap is bone dry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933.md?page=7)