# Discussions about board policy need a home **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 17, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237 "2009-02-17T05:06:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/21 "2009-02-17T22:56:21Z")
There was only one insult, but there was an admonition to “you two”. It had already settled into a well reasoned, polite discussion by the time intervention came. There was no acknowledgment of that. Or of a previous apology for snark, either. Just an ill-timed blanket clamp-down. Those are simply the facts. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/22 "2009-02-17T22:59:57Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > If we’re making a decision about board policy, why should we value the opinions of the vehemently opinionated over the timid? Is it somehow impossible for you to discuss the matter calmly and rationally? 😉 I know, but where’s the entertainment value in timidity? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/23 "2009-02-17T23:00:18Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > That would be in the Pit, because it wasn’t just an “in-depth discussion,” it involved snarkiness and name-calling (“deliberately thick-headed”, for instance.) > > It should be possible to discuss board policies without sinking to personal insults. ATMB does not have a low tolerance for vigorous debate, but it does have a low tolerance for personal insults. I fully agree about the personal insults bit. Had **TubaDiva** made her post after the initial insulting exchange between the two or specifically referenced those posts in her (very gentle) admonition, I don’t think there would have been any confusion. Things had calmed down and several reasonable posts had occurred when her post was made, though, so it read to me as if she was telling them to take the whole discussion elsewhere. Again, this particular example if hardly a big deal, but it’s a recent situation that reinforced the view that ATMB is a bit chilly to too much discussion. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/24 "2009-02-17T23:29:03Z")
Not to speak for **TubaDiva** , but I think you’re looking at an unfortunate timing in doling out admonishment for the earlier, less polite exchange. While I know there has been some interpretation of that being an attempt to stem serious and involved discussion in ATMB, it wasn’t meant to be. ATMB is still the place for civil discussion about board issues, even if that discussion turns into a prolonged one. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/25 "2009-02-18T00:46:03Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > Not to speak for **TubaDiva** , but I think you’re looking at an unfortunate timing in doling out admonishment for the earlier, less polite exchange. Since the unfortunate timing led to a misunderstanding, and questions about it had been raised, it seems that she could have made that clear with a subsequent post. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/26 "2009-02-18T02:11:50Z")
Sure, if she saw the questions. I know I don’t always check back on a thread after I’ve moved it, so it’s easy to miss when someone thinks a move isn’t the right thing to do and questions are raised in the original thread. Regardless, the thread’s been moved back and we’ll have something more to say about the broader discussion later on. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/27 "2009-02-18T02:36:08Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > Sure, if she saw the questions. I know I don’t always check back on a thread after I’ve moved it, so it’s easy to miss when someone thinks a move isn’t the right thing to do and questions are raised in the original thread. > > Regardless, the thread’s been moved back and we’ll have something more to say about the broader discussion later on. You’re talking about a different thread now, I think. I think **Contrapuntal** was referring to the spoiler thread, and you’re referring to the “What to you want the Pit to be like?” thread. I’ll add, I’m fairly amazed by the concept that any mod would not check back on a thread in which they had issued an admonishment, just in case. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/28 "2009-02-18T02:42:47Z")
No, you’re right; I was mixed-up and got my threads confused. Thanks, **Frank** , and sorry about that, **Contrapuntal**. You can ignore my post. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237/29 "2009-02-18T08:36:36Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I’ll add, I’m fairly amazed by the concept that any mod would not check back on a thread in which they had issued an admonishment, just in case. They certainly expect the poster to check back, else he couldn’t know he’d been admonished. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussions-about-board-policy-need-a-home/486237.md?page=1)