I understand and agree with the need to keep debates out of IMHO but when you say something like:
you have to expect someone to respond. When I did then your Mod hat came on:
It seems like you were interjecting your own GD topic into a poll and then when you are called on it you shut down any discussion with your power as a Mod. Or if I was given to hyperbole I could say you crushed me under your jackboot of oppression. You were acting as a poster then changed your tune when you didn’t like the response. I could understand your admonishment if I was responding to another poster but since it was you I detect a conflict of interest.
Though I welcome any ones view on whether I am right to feel this way please don’t argue about the draft. I’m sure there are plenty of threads for that.
I don’t think that was directed at you specifically, but at all quoters in general. I wouldn’t take it personal.
But as long as we’re talking about that thread anyways, I find toadspittle’s request
to perfectly exemplify the simplistic, no nuance, black or white type of thinking that I have great abhorrence for.
Circumstances will change opinions. No, I don’t believe there will be a draft. In case of WWIII, all bets are off. To ask for an answer to this question that covers all circumstances is only inviting a slew of ‘maybe’ answers. I think the answers there have been quite fair and honest. I guess maybe they’re not the answers that he was looking for.
I’m not. This being the Pit I would have thrown a few “fuck you’s” in the OP if I were. However, I do think it was directed at me in this case. I’m sure Czarcasm will be by to clarify in due course.
To continue with your hijack of my post, I agree with you and I can’t stand when someone comes by and attempts to add artbitrary rules to a thread, especially when its not the OP.
But, Toadwas the OP. It looks to me like he simply attempting to clarify his original request.
Obviously, he hadn’t considered the “wishy washy” when he peened the OP. When it became obvious to him, he attmpted to narrow the responses down. Still, look at the OP again. He did indeed ask for a simple yes or no. Only the yes option had any extras, namely, the time period.
However, Toad seems to be missing one important fact: sometimes you can’t narrow down a hot topic to either black or white. Seems to me almost any issue can harbor large amounts of grey.
To defend Czarcasm, you’ll not the specific admonition was to avoid quoting other posters, not to avoid making other comments altogether. A slight difference there.
To defend myself (wow! only my second time in the Pit, ever … I’m glad this is in a civil thread), I’m sorry that I didn’t make the OP sufficiently narrow. I am looking for black and white responses on this one. And while predicting the nature of what would/wouldn’t lead to a draft (and whether or not it’s a good idea) is indeed an issue laden with gray, I’m trying to get people to place their bets. You could not go to a bookie and say, " I bet $5,000 that the Red Sox will win the World Series this year … unless Pedro Martinez gets hit by a car; if that happens, then change my bet to go the other way."
I’m just asking people to vote for one proposition or the other, based on today’s limited information.
I could start cursing at you if you want to get the full Pit treatment.
I understand the difference. I also agree with the idea behind it. It is a politically charged topic and no one wants the thread to become a debate since it was a poll in IMHO. That was not your intent as the OP and it was staying pretty civilized. I just thought it was unfair to throw out a highly debatable, politically charged statement in an only slightly related thread and then complain when I comment was made. Maybe I should of kept my comment to myself but I was only responding to a comment that didn’t belong there either.
I think my point was that, if the thread was a debate then quotes from other posts are perfectly acceptable, but since it was clearly a poll then it should be treated as one. Now, if you thought that my clarifying comment needed questioning, then(considering it’s political nature) you might want to start a thread in Great Debates and insert a link to my post.
Loach it is fairly common for threads of that nature to have things like that. There were two MPSIMS threads a while back (not bothering to search) called “Unpopular truths” and “Unpopular things you believe”, or something similar. They got ejected from MPSIMS (one was closed IIRC) when they mutated from throwing shit at the wall and seeing what stuck to throwing shit at other posts, and their posters. The same issue is at hand here. By replying to a post in a way that implies you are debating you are not following the forum’s purpose. It doesn’t matter how controversial the stand. The proper thing to do is to start a GD or Pit thread over it.
You are preaching to the choir. I agree with all that. My problem is that it was a Mod throwing shit at the wall. When someone questioned the validity of that comment then the same Mod came in and squashed any discussion. If someone else made the initial comment and Czarcasm came in with his admonishment I would have no problem with it. My problem is that a poster puts an irrelevant politically charged talking point into a poll and then throws his moderator hat on when someone calls him on it. He knew it would cause a reaction but could quash that reaction with the power of Mod. Like I said he can’t have it both ways. If you are moderating show some moderation. If you want the thread to stay on track don’t put in a detour. You are the one who is supposed to be clearing out those detours.
You can, however, go to a bookie and lay 100 bucks on the Sox, and then another 10 on “Something happens to Pedro to knock him out of the Series and the Sox lose.” The odds on the second happening should be low enough, with the two variables, to cover your first bet.
I was pointing out that you can, in fact, do that exact thing. It’s called hedging your bets, isn’t it? It’s a way, when given something that can be answered only yes or no, to try to nuance your position.
Sorry I didn’t realize you commenting on Toads slight hijack to the OP where he commented on his OP which I refered to but was not talking about in this thread. You hijacked a hijack. Not complaining, it just confused me until I went back and reread the posts. The issue here was not the parameters Toad decided to put in his own thread, but rather the actions of Czarcasm.
