Czarcasm, our protector against adverse opinions.

The BBQ Pit
1

In this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=351585 , Posnyn asks how and where to find a good acupuncturist. No sooner has she solicited opinions and advice and facts on the matter, however, than Czarcasm springs into action to protect the OP in advance from the wrong kinds of advice and opinion and facts:

Well, certainly. If anyone wants to pursue a controversial therapy, and introduce relatives to it, especially if they’re just starting out and aren’t too familiar with it themselves, what purpose could be served by doing anything other than enabling them in that course? I understand there are similar rules at some boards helping young women get started in other health-related lifestyle choices, such as anorexia. I heartily approve: such understandings keep the discussion from getting messy. Just to keep things clear, however, I’ll help Poysyn here.

Poysyn, congratulations on embracing a form of traditional therapy that has been in continuous use in China since the 1960s. My advice is, even if you live in one of the 20 states that allow acupuncturists to practice without any medical training or supervision, try to find one that’s also an M.D., because there’s nothing wrong with additional knowledge. The ability to prescribe antibiotics is also a plus. Fortunately, there are plenty of practitioners who also are licensed physicians, and accrediting institutions available for the many more who are not ( NCAHF Position Paper on Acupuncture (1990) | Quackwatch ).

Honestly, I don’t care nearly as much about acupuncture as I do about the fact that we’ve gone from being warned to play nice, or being sent elsewhere by a thread being shut down, to just being told up front how the thread is supposed to go and what may and may not be said in it. If someone wants to know how large his home-made parachute needs to be before he can jump off the Chrysler Building, shall he be protected from hearing any voices suggesting that he not do it, that it may be dangerous, or illegal, or anything other than mathematical calculations recommending a square footage? The famously liability-sensitive Chicago Reader approves of this? Phooey.

Czarcasm, your actions in the referenced thread are immoderate, immodest and imprudent. Do you have a better reason for them than simply not wanting to have to monitor its progress to see that things didn’t get too heated?

2

In light of how the question was phrased (i.e. how do I find a good acupuncturist? vs. is acupuncture any good?), it seemed like a reasonable preemption to me. If you really, really want to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of acupuncture, start a thread in GD (or the Pit) and knock yourself out.
Besides, since when is “immodesty” even a trivial offense for a Doper? I always took it as a given, unless you’re some kinda pious loser who’ll be driven off by a storm of well-deserved derision sooner or later.

3

Darn, I forgot to have a moderator arrange for only positive, OP-affirming opinions to appear in this thread. Oh, well.

I thought the question was phrased in a way that made it obvious that the OP knew very little about acupuncture, and was hardly steadfast in his/her determination to proceed. If someone started an in-person conversation that way about any controversial enterprise they proposed to undertake, I’d think that was exactly the time to make sure they knew about both sides of the argument (okay, at least I would if I was neutral about or against it).

I don’t particularly care about acupuncture, and if the OP had requested that s/he only receive positive replies, I’d have shrugged and let him/her be as ignorant as they wanted to be, wondering a little if the SDMB would permit it, operating as it does under color of fighting ignorance. But here it’s a moderator, all unbidden, acting to keep information away from a poster who is soliciting our help. Whatever side one is on, there are serious arguments and issues here, and eliminating the controversy from a controversial subject makes no one any smarter.

I always took immodesty to be a trait of pious losers along with everybody else, and maybe especially so, but I meant immodest in the sense of “overbold.”

4

So Czarcasm didn’t close the thread. He just posted a reminder to keep replies focused on answers to the question and not to turn the thread into a [del]fight[/del] debate. You pitted him for it? :confused:

I think you’re a little quick on the draw there, your majesty.

5

So, is this thread about acupuncture or mod madness?

6

I’m being pitted because I’m doing my job (not letting you turn a simple request in IMHO into a debate on accupuncture)?

“Waiter, I have a complaint! This gazpacho soup is cold!”

7

Jackmanii, you – oh. Subtle post. I think I like it.

Harborwolf, this is in the Pit only because, as you know, it has to be. It opens a discussion about a moderator’s actions on the Board. I’m not calling for anybody’s head, or even the slight but vividly memorable wounding of their puppy. I saw something I didn’t like and I’m complaining about it because silence didn’t seem like an effective strategy for preventing its recurrence. I would have preferred to put the post (second paragraph, minus the final sentence, and third paragraph) in the original thread. But I can respect authority as long as I have a means of disagreeing with it, and that seemed unnecessarily provocative, so here I am, willing to be persuaded.

Czarcasm didn’t close the thread, true: he left it immobile and brain-dead, but alive. He didn’t post a warning to be nice, he didn’t watch the thread and wait for anything bad to actually happen (why did he assume, by the way, that any threat to civility would come only from neutral or anti-acupuncture posters?), he put up a sign excluding any discussion of acupuncture’s possible disadvantages or ineffectiveness. I think that’s wrong, at least in the second post to a thread in which the OP her/himself didn’t request protection from dissent.

I’m trying to think of the best way to explain the difference between a Cafe Society thread titled: “Accordion Music Fans Gather 'Round!” which involves no significant factual issues or consequences, a MPSIMS thread titled: “I just did _______. Help Me Feel Good About My Decision!” in which factual dispute could have no effect on the OP’s personal consequences and the OP is asking explicitly for support, and a thread titled: “I want to do _________, and don’t know much about it. How Should I Proceed?” The last seems to me to be the kind of question to which the hypothetical post “Don’t do ________,” is legitimately responsive. For now, I’ll rely on the difference to be evident in the description. I can’t think of any real-world discussion in which the opening sentence “I’m thinking of/I’d like to/Iwant to do X” does not invite consideration of reasons not to do X, whether or not the OP wants to hear it, and absolutely whether or not a third party, however important, wants to hear it. As for preventing the thread turning into a fight, I hope that’s not the case. If so, it would mean a moderator knew there were significant controversial issues involved in a poster’s future plans (related to health care, no less), and intervened to prevent one side only from being heard.

And Czarcasm, you’re not being pitted for doing your job, you’re being pitted for doing it poorly. Gazpacho is supposed to be cold: discussion of issues on this message board is not (I think) supposed to be one-sided. But, if that’s really your only answer, let’s try an experiment.

OP: I really like food but I need to lose weight. I’ve heard that a technique called bulimia can help. Can anybody give me information on the best purgatives, diuretics and laxatives to use? Oh, and advice about vomiting techniques would help too.

Moderator: Remember, guys, only advice about how to use bulimia successfully as a means of losing weight is permitted in this thread.

Still okay with everybody?

8

Actually, I think TKoS has a point. If the question were in GQ, then I could see the restriction to factual answers only, that’s what GQ is for. I could also see the proactive approach by a mod as being a good idea, head the debate off at the pass.

However, the question was posted and left in IMHO, which is for frank exchanges of views and opinions. Restricting someone from posting their opinion of a topic in a forum specifically intended for opinions and discussion is unreasonable.

Czarcasm, if the question should be treated as a GQ, then it should be moved there. If it’s in IMHO, then we should be allowed to offer up our HOs.

9

I don’t have a problem with what Czarcasm did. I like having IMHO restricted to civil, non-confrontational exchanges (at least by SDMB standards) that are focused on what the OP desires. It brings a level of civility to the threads that the other forums lack.

Acupuncture is the kind of topic that’s likely to bring the skeptics out of the woodwork (when it comes to “alternative” healing, I’m one myself), and a reminder to stay on-topic doesn’t hurt.

10

Just a thought, but perhaps there was a post or two that Czarcasm ‘disappeared’?

11

Mine doesn’t want to go.

12

How is it possible to answer a question about finding a “good acupuncturist” if there is no such thing as a good acupuncturist.

If someone asked how to find a good pet psychic or a reputable ghost removal company would it be out of line to tell the OP (in an OPINION forum) that those things are quackery and that she’d be wasting her money?

13

I think this is exactly the kind of post the warning in the IMHO thread was supposed to prevent. It’s a given that OP believes acupuncture has some merit, and is soliciting opinions of relative merit, rather than inviting opinions that no merit exists at all. Had the thread been started in GD or the Pit, I’d say it’s open season, but IMHO (I thought) was a somewhat less confrontational forum.

The OP of this thread, of course, is a hair-trigger pious loser who is so paranoid that his precious beliefs re: acupuncture are being challenged even when they’re not that he reflexively lashes out. Fortunately he did so in the Pit, therefore he’s metaphorically painted a target on his crotch and hung out a “kick me” sign.

14

I take the King of Soup’s point.

Let’s say I post to the effect that I need advice as to the best way to send an item to Nigeria, as I’ve done a brilliant trade with somebody in Lagos.

Czarcasm instantly steps in to tell posters to stick to recommending shipping agents, etc.

Have I been well served by the Dope?

15

If the OP just asked “where can I find an acupuncturist” I could see restricting the discussion. But he asked “where can I find a good acupuncturist”. Obviously, then, the question of whether there is such a thing as a good acupuncturist is relevant, and “You can’t because there aren’t any” is a legitimate reply. What Czarcasm effectively has done is to close the thread to people who don’t believe in acupuncture.

16

Methinks this and Diogenes post are the sort of thing that Czarcasm saw coming.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with a little preemptive reminder to keep all hits above the belt. Dopers can be a relatively contrary and opinionated bunch. You may or may not have noticed. Better to have things nipped at the bud stage than to have the thread locked after things become ugly.

17

You know, friend Bryan, there’s only one party that’s tried to stifle discussion on the topic of acupuncture, from either side, and I’m not it. So who’s afraid of their beliefs being challenged? For the third time, I don’t care much about acupuncture, but I do care that an SDMB moderator has assumed the role of protecting an OP from dissenting opinions even before any have been advanced. In a thread about art or dating or something inconsequential, it may be permissible or even necessary to warn off or bounce over-aggressive and contentious posters. Even then, I think it’s poor moderating to do it pre-emptively.

Cases like this are different. When a poster asks advice of the SDMB membership about a proposed course of action, and such action is the subject of much controversy, and the action is likely to impact the poster’s health in a material way, then it is irresponsible to wall off any opinions or facts which might dissuade the poster from his/her intentions. It would be irresponsible to do it at the OP’s request, and it’s irresponsible and overreaching to do it absent that request in the very first response, before anybody said so much as a harsh word. Czarcasm wasn’t protecting the thread from nastyness: there hadn’t been any, and it could have been handled in much less restrictive ways if a threat to IMHO tranquility developed. He was protecting a thread from complete information and full discussion of an issue that will have consequences for a poster’s well-being. Ain’t that a kick in the crotch?

Harborwolf, a reminder to keep things civil is exactly what the situation called for, if Czarcasm foresaw trouble. But that’s not what we got. Instead, we got an order that one side of a controversial topic just plain did not exist, for purposes of that thread. I think that’s wrong.

18

Meh, an ounce of warning is worth a pound of ban. Considering how readily people like Diogenes will jump all over a topic like acupuncture (or anything, really), it’s not at all inappropriate to remind users that IMHO isn’t the forum for acrimonious debates.

Your thread title, at the very least, should be modified to “…protector against adverse opinions in IMHO”, since the location of the subject thread is a critical factor. Your sarcasm is not witty, original or insightful enough to be worthy of anything above contempt.

19

If I may suggest, why not start a great debate thread and post a link in the other thread. That way Poysyn can get the info if she wants it and the arguin’ can go where it belongs.

I can see your side, but I guess I can’t see the big deal about it. Like I said above. I just prefer these things cut off rather than see a thread locked down due to agressive doping. As always, ymmv.

20

I’ll try to make this simple enough for you to follow:

  1. Read the title of the thread.
  2. Read the first post in said thread.
  3. Stay on topic or go away.
  4. Rinse and repeat.

The thread was not a debate on the merits of accupuncture-if it was, I would have moved it to Great Debates.
The thread did not ask for the history of accupucture-if it did, I would have moved it to General Questions.
The thread was not, and did not invite, an attack on accupuncture-if it was or did, I would have moved it to The BBQ Pit.
The thread asked for directions on how to find a good accupuncturist, which is a matter of opinion, so it belongs where it now resides.