# Closure of HD's thread in IMHO **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 21, 2019, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747 "2019-11-21T01:59:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2019, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/41 "2019-11-22T18:23:28Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > I don’t think anyone here is entitled to have a G-rated version of whatever they want to argue about. > If you can’t handle the pit, maybe it’s best you avoid that subject altogether. That’s nonsensical. There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting a thread asking someone a question. Nobody here is under any obligation to respond. Not wanting to engage in the pit is perfectly a legitimate desire. Why compel someone to respond in the Pit? Is that harassment? ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2019, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/42 "2019-11-22T18:29:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So thread topics should be subject to a heckler’s veto (of sorts)? If by “heckler” you mean pretty much everyone in the thread besides you; yeah sure. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/43 "2019-11-22T18:52:21Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting a thread asking someone a question. Of course there isn’t, but if you’re calling someone out for not answering a question, those threads belong in the Pit. Refusing to participate in Pit threads is a personal choice, the rest of the SDMB isn’t required to change our rules because of HD’s personal choices. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2019, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/44 "2019-11-22T21:59:40Z")
You’re overlooking that the reason HD didn’t pursue the topic further in the original ATMB thread where he posed it was that he was directed by **Bone** not to participate in any more hijacks in that thread. He was basically told not to pursue the question in that thread. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2019, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/45 "2019-11-22T22:11:03Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Of course there isn’t, but if you’re calling someone out for not answering a question, those threads belong in the Pit. > > Refusing to participate in Pit threads is a personal choice, the rest of the SDMB isn’t required to change our rules because of HD’s personal choices. Look, how many times have mods instructed posters to not hijack a thread and start a new one? At least 2 or 3 I’m sure. Well that’s what HD did! And who cares if there is a pre-existing tangentially related thread in The Pit? The existence of a Pit thread on a particular subject should be of 0 consequence. Why? Because of the rules of the Pit make conversation even more difficult if you are a poster with a minority opinion and even more more difficult if the Pit regulars have a special animus directed at you. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2019, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/46 "2019-11-22T22:33:22Z")
“[T]he rules of the Pit make conversation even more difficult if you are a poster who continually presents minority opinions in a manner which prompts animosity.” FTFY ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2019, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/47 "2019-11-23T10:10:10Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Look, how many times have mods instructed posters to not hijack a thread and start a new one? At least 2 or 3 I’m sure. Well that’s what HD did! That doesn’t give you license to start the thread wherever you want, you still have to put it in the correct forum. His new thread was easily identified as “you didn’t answer the question when asked, so here’s an entirely new thread with the same question directed specifically at you so you can answer it.” That’s a beef with another poster, and belongs in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2019, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/48 "2019-11-23T10:21:26Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The description of the Pit is > > This is a beef. I disagree with that characterization. He wasn’t insulting \*\*iiandyiiii \*\*, he wasn’t calling his argument stupid. He was trying to explore what he thought was a good rebuttal argument to the position stayed by \*\*iiandyiiii \*\*. > [@](#): > > Sure, HD puts all sort of pretty pretty words around it, but the core of this thread is a question HD wanted answered and didn’t get. No matter how politely you put it, the thread has iiandiii’s name in the title, and is a direct request to answer a question already asked somewhere else. It was a topic hijack taken to another thread because HD had specifically been instructed not to participate in any more hijacks or discussion not about the Op. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > He didn’t open the thread to avoid a hijack. He opened it to pressure iiandyiiii to answer a question that he thought was a big ol’ gotcha, but iiandyiiii didn’t bite on in ATMB. I will admit there is an element of gotcha to it. It was a strong rebuttal to iiandyiiii’s stated position. > [@Grrr](#): > > If you’re a man or woman that stands by their convictions, a few “Get fucked by a cacti” shouldn’t phase a reasonable grown adult. And yet we have a forum for debates of contentious topics that doesn’t allow that kind of abuse. In fact, that kind of “argument” is limited to one forum specifically because it is toxic to reasoned debate. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2019, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/49 "2019-11-23T22:33:22Z")
This is another transparent attempt to silence certain opinions, and to protect holders of certain other opinions from having to defend them. That goes against the whole purpose of this board. There was no compulsion, or attempted compulsion. What there was was a very mild attempt to shame someone into defending their actions - a far milder attempt than the ridiculous thread in this forum shaming **Shodan**. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2019, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/50 "2019-11-23T22:44:44Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > “[T]he rules of the Pit make conversation even more difficult if you are a poster who continually presents minority opinions in a manner which prompts animosity.” > > FTFY “The rules of the pit are made up randomly and enforced according to popular pressure.” FTFFY ---
**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:** [November 23, 2019, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/51 "2019-11-23T23:49:06Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > This is another transparent attempt to silence certain opinions… And what “certain opinions” would they happen to be? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2019, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/52 "2019-11-24T01:41:49Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > “The rules of the pit are made up randomly and enforced according to popular pressure.” > > FTFFY If that was true, banning **FXM** and **Clothahump** wouldn’t have taken so long. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2019, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/53 "2019-11-24T09:03:48Z")
It’s a pretty neat trick for the rules to be simultaneously random and enforced by popular opinion. Does the mob randomly generate the rules in a “thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters” kind of way? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2019, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/54 "2019-11-24T10:58:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **HurricaneDitka** > So thread topics should be subject to a heckler’s veto (of sorts)? > [@Grrr](#): > > If by “heckler” you mean pretty much everyone in the thread besides you; yeah sure. But isn’t that argumentum ad populum? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2019, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/55 "2019-11-24T11:52:24Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I disagree with that characterization. He wasn’t insulting \*\*iiandyiiii \*\*, he wasn’t calling his argument stupid. He was trying to explore what he thought was a good rebuttal argument to the position stayed by \*\*iiandyiiii \*\*. A beef isn’t an insult or calling someone stupid, it’s a complaint. He wanted to explore his argument but iiandyiiii wasn’t going for it. Ultimately he went for the “publicly call him out” version of the exploration, which is perfectly fine, but calling out other posters for a failure to support their positions is something restricted to the Pit. He could have explored his argument in other ways, but he did not choose to do that. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2019, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/56 "2019-11-24T15:20:09Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Ultimately he went for the “publicly call him out” version of the exploration, which is perfectly fine, but calling out other posters for a failure to support their positions is something restricted to the Pit. He could have explored his argument in other ways, but he did not choose to do that. And that’s a key point. **iiandyiiii** had refused to reply to him before HD was sanctioned. So he was not in fact taking a hijack out of ATMB. He was making another thread to demand that **iiandyiiii** answer him. And that’s what **ecg** said is not permitted. You’re not allowed to make a new thread to demand that a poster answer a question that they had previously decided not to. Now, if he’d Pitted **iiandyiiii** for not answering him, that would be a different story. But he refuses to engage in the Pit. So he loses the ability to call someone out in one thread for their actions in another thread. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/57 "2019-11-24T15:21:55Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > It’s a pretty neat trick for the rules to be simultaneously random and enforced by popular opinion. > > Does the mob randomly generate the rules in a “thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters” kind of way? It takes a high level of cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/58 "2019-11-24T15:56:47Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And that’s a key point. **iiandyiiii** had refused to reply to him before HD was sanctioned. So he was not in fact taking a hijack out of ATMB. He was making another thread to demand that **iiandyiiii** answer him. Andy never refused. He didn’t answer, but to say he refused to answer implies you somehow know what he’s thinking. It’s not fair for you, or anyone, to tell us what Andy is thinking and/or put words in his mouth. Maybe he was refusing to answer or maybe he didn’t see the question or just hadn’t had a chance to address the question yet. I know I’ve certainly moved past a question directed at me until I have time to give it the proper response, even if I make other posts to the same thread in the mean time. > [@](#): > > But he refuses to engage in the Pit. Where did you read that? Or did you make that up as well? > [@](#): > > And that’s what **ecg** said is not permitted. You’re not allowed to make a new thread to demand that a poster answer a question that they had previously decided not to. In what world is " I asked you a question in that thread and you didn’t answer it (or if you did, I missed your answer). I’d like to give you the opportunity to do so here, if you’re willing" a demand? So, what about this: In this post, I asked you to show me where HD refuses to engage in the pit. The next day and a few dozen posts later, I don’t see a reply, so I quote the same post I quoted here, quote my question to you and say “I don’t think I saw an answer to this, did you ever find a cite for it?” Is that okay? Because that’s literally all that happened. The only difference being that he moved it to it’s own thread because so as not to hijack the first thread even more. And besides, it’s not like ‘hey, you didn’t answer me’ doesn’t get posted on a pretty regular basis around here. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2019, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747/59 "2019-11-24T17:12:13Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > In what world is " I asked you a question in that thread and you didn’t answer it (or if you did, I missed your answer). I’d like to give you the opportunity to do so here, if you’re willing" a demand? When it’s in its own thread, with the poster named in the title, and is the only reason for the thread’s existence, it’s a thread where one poster is calling out another poster for non-responsiveness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closure-of-hds-thread-in-imho/843747.md?page=2)