I’m going to make an effort to keep this non-heated, as I am genuinely baffled by your decision to move this thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
The forum description for GD:
For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.
The forum description for IMHO:
“What’s your favorite …?” For frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics. This is also the place for polling.
Alcoholism seems a lot closer to a “less than cosmic topic” than it does to a “great question of our time” to me. The thread has some “frank exchanges”, but does not appear to be particularly heated.
I flat out don’t get whatever you’re trying to achieve by this type of move. Are you going to move any thread where there is any disagreement/discussion of a topic to Great Debates? Why?
Should the forum description be altered to better describe whatever you will allow to remain in that forum?
Huh? The only mod that even posted in the thread is **Czarcasm, **and all he posted is a “moved to GD” type note. No insult there.
Hell, Der Trihs and I were having a perfectly civil exchange of views. That almost never happens. The strongest comment in the thread is probably mine, where I called bullshit on one of the OP’s comments…and that ain’t really a pistols at dawn kinda deal.
Really not trying to pick a fight with anybody here. I just don’t understand what may be posted in IMHO these days. I’m pretty sure I remember some much more volatile threads there in the past.
In my (unimportant) opinion, it seems the specific question about alcoholism asked in your linked thread is GD material. Can an alcoholic (or other addict) ever safely drink/use again is a question that I’ve seen rip families apart who disagree about the answer. It can drive alcoholics into two major camps based on how they fundamentally view the condition. There are other questions about alcoholism that are much less fundamental, but that question I think falls into the almost philosophy area.
Others may disagree, but I can see why that question got moved. It can still remain civil and non-heated in GD, can’t it?
Based on previous experience, threads involving alcoholism and/or AA have either started in Great Debates, or a moderator has had to move it there because the arguing gets hot and heavy pretty fast.
edited to add: This doesn’t mean that the exchange has to go down that road, but the nature of alcoholism and its varied treatments is a controversial topic.
And seldom has there ever been seen a less confrontational way to enter a thread where posters are discussing their personal experiences with alcoholism:
Were you expecting things to take a turn toward the more civil interchange of IMHO after that?
The move strikes me as odd too. “Is alcoholism a disease?” may be a GD-worthy topic, but the thread up to that point consisted entirely of posters offering their own uncited opinions. (Whether such a discussion is inherently valuable is itself a topic of debate, but it was what it was.)
It looks as though a playground monitor, nervous that a fight might break out among chatting kids, suddenly corralled everyone into the lecture hall so they could take turns reciting essays.
Oakminster, you seem to be one of the more vocal citizens when it comes to bitching about the SD mods or their actions. If Karma truly exists, you’ll become a mod here.
Pretty sure that’s not going to happen. I’ve applied twice, rejected both times, on the theory that I’m too mean/hot headed to be a moderator here. I disagree with that assessment, but it’s not my call to make. Also have several on the current staff that strongly oppose such a move.
The question of whether alcoholism is a disease or a character flaw and the question of whether AA is benign or malignant are both Great Debates. It’s basically your first post that made the thread unsuitable for IMHO.
That’s what I don’t understand. Is there no argument allowed in IMHO anymore? Why? I’m obviously not a doctor or other treatment/counseling professional, so I’m offering a lay opinion. I’m not interested in citing sources on point, but I don’t mind explaining why I feel the way I do. We already have MPSIMS as the fluffy bunny forum…what is allowed in IMHO? Is it just for polls, with no discussion whatsoever? It seems to me that IMHO used to allow much more robust discussion than is tolerated now…and that does not make sense to me, considering the forum description quoted above.
I think either the forum description should be modified to reflect whatever the current purpose of the forum is supposed to be, or threads started there should remain there as long as they remain above Pit levels of venom.
Please understand I’m not angry here. Not calling for anybody’s head over this or anything. Just not understanding the current standards for the forum.
This is not a valid conclusion to draw from the moving of this one thread.
We, as a community, have a collective experience and memory about what happens to discussions about A.A. and alcoholism being a disease. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that generalized forum descriptions should cover every possibility.
True, but it seems to be a developing pattern with threads that provoke some level of discussion/disagreement. From the forum description, I see IMHO as sort of “Great Debates Light”. Similar rules of engagement/standards of civility, less weighty subjects, more casual, less citation. When the forum was under prior management, I think that’s a reasonable description of what was allowed. Now it seems the rules have changed, or at least the expectations are different than prior practice.
Actually, the thread did have a very civil exchange between Der Trihs and myself. You’re aware of the history there. We’re generally diametrically opposed on most topics and we’ve often locked horns before. This time, I think we were both pretty calm and reasonable. His position is that my word choice has negative connotations avoided by his word choice. He didn’t spew venom when he expressed himself, and and I don’t think I offered him any in return.
That might all be true, but the quoted post was before any participation from Der Trihs in the thread. It was one of the first posts after the OP. It really verged on a personal attack of the OP, IMHO, since they are expressing their personal experiences with something you are saying is due to a character flaw.
All that aside, I have seen mods answer in the past many times about why they would immediately move some innocuous thread straight to GD and they usually say that experience has just shown certain issues will wind up in GD every time they come up. They seem to be pretty accurate if you follow the threads that wind up there, although some of that might be the new venue increasing the debate level.
All I was adding to this is that coming into the thread with a debating point of view that was likely to draw some fire was sure to help speed along that process, but it is one of those hot button topics that would have wound up there anyway.
I don’t see anyone insulting anyone in that thread. Which thread are you reading?
Yes, both of you were very civil to one another. Your previous comment was definite fight bait, though, and someone had already brought up AA as being a cult before the move. Both of those are matters that regularly end up in GD, so that’s the motivation by Czarcasm to move this thread.
So, he’s replied with his motivation - prior experience shows this topic is GD territory. This is not about any general limitation on exchange of views or discussion in IMHO. Is that sufficient for you?
For the thread in question, sure. Czarcasm was kind enough to explain his rationale for the move. I disagree, but I accept his decision.
On the broader question–I do think there is a recent trend to sharply restrict the “frank exchange of views” in that forum. I do not believe it is necessary to do that. I wish Czarcasm as a moderator would relax a little bit about such things in the IMHO forum. If the boys want to fight a little bit, then let them.
That said, the decision is not mine to make. There are rumors that I may be an asshole sometimes…but I’m an asshole that generally follows the rules as I understand them. And will advocate for a change in the rules, or a different application thereof, from time to time.
