Explain this thread closing to me.


It looks like punishing the OP for attracting the doucheness of QED.

It may have been true that the OP had been answered, but that is hardly how it goes in GQ. This is what makes GQ better than Google or Wiki, the discussion and banter that broadens the subject.

Why is QED let by with just some moderator eye rolling when he is shitting the thread? And then has the thread closed which is obviously what he wanted.

It is not the first time QED gets away with shitting threads either. He shat all over the glossolalia thread not long ago, just for a recent example. Is he over the law here? Does he know something about TPTB that make the mods step around him?

If a thread is shat, slap the shitter, don’t close the thread.

Well, the question was answered, I’m not sure how much of a discussion you thought would have continued.

Now if you wanted to pit QED, I’d have no argument.

The thread was closed because the question was answered. This was addressed in that thread and the answer came from WhyNot. It wasn’t closed d/t QED. I agree he shit in the thread(and did not directly answer the question posed by the OP), but the thread had served its purpose and was therefore closed.
Thank God mods don’t get paid, because there is not enough money for this kind of thing.

I am not pitting QED (he knows my attitude towards him is basically positive). And I am not sure what is “this kind of thing” that should be so painful to the mods. I am just asking.

Closing GQ threads after 3 hours and 10 posts because they have run their course is just not the GQ way. And we don’t know that the answer was what the OP was looking for as he had no chance to reply.

It would be helpful to me if you included your definition of “threadshitting,” which appears to be different from what I understand it to be, i.e., posting, usually in a drive-by fashion and off-topic, simply to be a jerk or to stir shit up. I won’t argue that my posting style is often brusque, even rude, but don’t believe I generally post just to stir the pot or be intentionally jerkish.

I do agree, however, with your main point which is that threads shouldn’t be closed simply because they were answered and the mod doesn’t like the behavior of one of the respondents.

I’m in the awkward position of agreeing with both QED and Sapo.

QED was being abrasive, but he wasn’t threadshitting (it doesn’t help that I hate that term). There was no good reason to close the thread.

Ouch :wink:

As pittings go, it would be less undeserved than many.

Some days you can only wish you had stayed in bed.

Closing a thread isn’t punishing the OP. His question was asked and answered; GQ threads are often closed if hijacked and the person has received the answer to their question.

But based on my own limited observations, you do go offtopic, and you can be rude to others in defense of your offtopic posts. In fact you posted to the linked thread without addressing the OPs question - he wasn’t remotely asking for the answers you provided. And you felt that defending your incorrect answers was worth cluttering up the thread further.

This is not to speak for samclem, but as a GQ mod this is basically how I would read it. It was a simple question, asked and answered. There was no great reason to keep it open.

Q.E.D.'s posts were not at all helpful, but in my opinion did not rise to the level of being threadshitting or meriting a warning. There are lots of equivalent posts in GQ that don’t elicit moderator action, so there is really no call to postulate special treatment toward Q.E.D. Q.E.D.'s remarks however were serving to hijack the thread. Given that the question had been answered, the most convienient course was to close the thread.

Well, you know, Sapo’s schtick is so predictable it’s hard to take it seriously anymore. He’s a recreational complainer. He get’s his kicks here by seeking out any trivial thing regarding moderator actions to nitpick, carp, complain, or cavil about, and thus draw attention to himself. He’s like that dweeby kid in the back of the room in third grade, squawking about how teacher didn’t punish Joey for sticking out his tongue.

With due respect, I must disagree. Well, mostly. I concede that arguing about it didn’t serve to accomplish anything, and that I could have been less pugnacious in my posts. However, I should point out that my second post contained a topical link to relevant information regarding the (lack of) efficacy of the product in question.

There seems to be a suggestion that posts with GQ threads should only directly address the OP. This is a bad direction, IMO; going completely off the rails is one thing, but tangentially-related topical information is often useful to others reading the thread. And I find the idea of allowing threads about quack medicine and other pseudoscience to stand unchallenged on a message board allegedly dedicated to eradicating ignorance to be saddening.

Huh? The guy just asked what the name of the stuff was.

In the thread, you said,

On behalf of the Teeming Millions, I’d like to thank you for pointing out that this medicinal compound has not, in fact, been definitively proven to be a genuine miracle cure.

You are cute. Seriously retarded, but cute.

Looks like the first time “asked and answered” was used to close a thread was back in July of 2002, when Lynn Bodoni shut down yet another ends with “gry” thread.
Good for Lynn.

I guess this is a nitpick since everyone else seems to be disregarding it. But if the OP came back and thought, no that wasn’t what I was looking for, he’d have to start a new thread linking back to the old one and start all over again which would be tedious.

I could understand asked and answered if the OP replied or if the answer was completely obvious, but it still seems possible that the answer wasn’t what the OP was looking for. Does the mod get to decide what the correct answer to the question was?

And I liked Colibri’s characterization of Sapo. . . very cute.

Well, how many herbal panaceas given their female “inventors” last name that sound kinda like Casia spelled in reverse do you think there are? Essiac is definitely the answer to the question, no doubt at all. And even given that there may be, it’s not like we’re limited to how many threads we can start, or threadstarting is terribly arduous. If the OP really is dissatisfied, he sure can start another.

I have no problem with tangents or side discussions or WAGS or even joking around in threads, even GQ threads. Heck knows I do enough of it. My problem with that particular one was that so much of it happened before a serious answer was given, and after, with no attempt at all to answer the question asked. And QED’s second response of (paraphrased) “Yeah, like I said.” just felt straight up jerkish. No, not like he said at all - it may *be *snake oil, but that’s not its name.

I would have been entirely comfortable with an answer like, “The name you’re looking for is Essiac or Essiac Tea. Unfortunately, it’s on Quackwatch’s list at this link, and it probably doesn’t work at all, or if it does, it’s due to the placebo effect.” Or, “The Essiac that WhyNot linked to might be it, but Quackwatch lists it as useless, so I wouldn’t use it if I were you.”

I don’t think it warranted an Official Warning or anything. If it had been a thread with an answer that required more than a single word, or a question that hadn’t been answered yet, “Knock it off” might have been the better way to go, but as the question was a very simple factual one, not a debate, there wasn’t really a reason to leave it open.

And I’ll also note that it was left open, for at least two hours, after being reported, until QED’s second post. If he hadn’t pushed the jerkitude, it probably would have stayed open.

Thanks for being charitable, but I merely dozed off when I meant to close it. :o

Yeah, pretty cut and dried. Hard to imagine a more concise OP question. It was answered. And, the potential for further mayhem had started to fester.

I don’t lightly close a GQ thread. It’s just a damned convenient tool to use, instead of going the warning, explaining route.

Some might characterize that as evidence of your cat-like alertness. :wink: