Except Max S. spelled it “Tulson.”
9 separate posters as of this post. So far the only posts in support of the moderation decision is you plus the moderators.
I am not saying that, if you turn your head sideways and read the post from a certain slant and are Colibri, you couldn’t perceive politics in it somehow. Just that so far most other human posters in here don’t see politics, myself included, and so there is no way to avoid breaking the rules given most human beings cannot perceive a violation of the quoted rule.
One Moderator and myself. Nine isn’t a lot, and it doesn’t even approach “most”.
That response was not an answer to the actual question in the OP, which was *not * a general “how should one respond to not getting to do the thing?”, but instead a more specific “what must one do to get to do the thing?”.
Errm, I guess that means I’m siding with **Colibri **?
The title was What Options Do You Have If The Police Are Breaking The Law. That’s pretty general. Is there a rule that says some questions in the OP can be answered and others can’t?
But if you actually read the OP you understand that he is looking for a way to accomplish a task, not run away from it.
I did see that. But again, are we not allowed to answer a question that is the thread title even if it is not exactly the same question asked further on in the OP?
There is a reason why the response “Get a Mac!” to questions about PC problems are frowned upon.
The OP clarifies/expands upon the title.
And the answer to “what must one do to get to do the thing” was “You keep your head down. Don’t stand out, don’t make a target of yourself. And you vote with your feet.”
Seems pretty straight forward. You don’t have to agree with it, but it’s certainly a perfectly acceptable answer.
Lets take any hint of politics or laws out of it. If the question was “I tried to buy a new kitchen aid mixer at target and the manager told me I wasn’t allowed to, what are my options”. “Leave the store, go across the street to Kohls or Best Buy or Walmart and buy it there” is good, and correct answer. SamuelA’s answer was basically saying you don’t always have to fight the power, sometimes you can get what you want by just going elsewhere instead of wasting your time trying to convince someone of something they’re not going to change their mind about.
To relate that to the OP, the person with the CCW could simply walk away and find another place to go with his gun. I’m not saying he was wrong or the cop was right, just that walking away (ie vote with your feet) is one of the options.
That’s not a particularly logical answer. If someone asks for opinions, and nine posters in a row respond the same way before one half-hearted disagreement chimes in, that’s a pretty decent indicator of how the population in general feels. (Yes, there is the possibility of a self-reporting problem, but that doesn’t suggest the answers will be skewed in one direction or the other, merely that people who happen to read the thread and care - in either direction - will post.)
When you say “nine isn’t a lot,” that’s a little (not exactly, of course) like CNN polling 1000 people and finding that 950 of them support impeachment, and someone countering “but there are nearly 250 million voters in the US - 950 isn’t a lot.” Yeah, it kind of is.
.
But this wasn’t a poll. It was a thread title openly critical of the moderation, and negative threads tend to attract like responses.
I suggest you test your hypothesis. If you look at other such threads in this very forum, normally the majority of posters are supporting the moderation staff. In fact I can show you two protesting a banning where it was pretty clear the “last straw” post wasn’t that bad, and yet posters support the moderation staff since the OP was a bad person.
Then he should have warned the OP for posting an IMHO topic in GQ.
But if the question was “I want a PC and my parents won’t let me get one, what are my options?”, “Get a Mac” wouldn’t be frowned upon.
You’re suggesting that SamA was threadshitting, but when the question is “What options does one have if you know that something is legal and the police try to prohibit it?” how is “don’t do it” threadshitting? It might not be the answer the OP was hoping for, but it’s an answer, a correct answer and certainly not threadshitting.
I’d like to point out that I am not your fan (this isn’t the Pit so I won’t say more) yet I’m still not siding with moderation here. And I am usually one who sides with moderators on most issues, because I’ve done that kind of thing before elsewhere and empathize.
I don’t think that’s something even worthy of a note unless a person makes a habit of it. I have seen “repeat offenders” get warned (often with locked threads too).
Like I said before, I try to remember where I am before posting a reply (I’m not perfect though), and when I see a non-GQ question in GQ I usually don’t try to answer. But I’d be upset if I tried to answer and got warned for it.
That would be harsh also.
No need to issue warning. Just move the post.
Dude, no. That’s not how this works. It just isn’t. Just for starters, you don’t get to define “best” in a way that departs so massively from any context relevant to the question in the op to almost become a parody. There’s more, but the net, net is that your answer was not a factual answer, was misplaced in that thread while it was still in GQ, especially being one of the first answers in it. I still think a warning was harsh, but now see that it may have been necessary to drive the point home.
It was unquestionably a fact. The OP asked what his options were. SamA responded by saying he could walk away/leave the situation. How is that not a fact?
If you’re saying it’s not a fact, then are you suggesting that it’s wrong or that it’s an opinion?
Also this “you don’t get to define “best”” is wrong as well. When creating a test, you have to define the variables. They can be defined however you choose, typically in such a way to make the results easy to interpret. It’s you’re opinion that he didn’t define ‘best’ correctly.
Sometimes but lets be honest; how often do I come down against a moderation? And how often have I come down in favor of one Mod or another in a negatively titled thread? Not that it proves anything of course but generally they get it right and I’m not shy to say so. I’m not sure its totally right this time.