If the answer is yes you can be as snarky as you want in GQ I can go be a prick.
“How do you get an oil stain out of your driveway”
Answer “Stop being so anal its a driveway, its not your dinner table”
“How long can a person live, really?”
Answer " I think you have Thanatophobia"
“Largest breed of cat”
Answer “That is the stupidest question, because cats are stupid, and for good measure I think you have a wierd fixation on cats better get help”
ect ect ect
Oh wait then I would be warned/banned for being a jerk eh… Thought so.
Maybe brightpenny is in need of some help with Verminophobia. But it does not change the fact that she did not ask if she had a problem, she asked a question.
He did answer the question, in a way. He said to repost in the appropriate forum. Questions about administration go in the Pit, questions about rules in ATMB. That question probably belonged in the Pit (it’s not just for goat-fleching anymore).
IMO, it was divorced from the warning about insults in GQ, but YMMV.
Oh I agree that thread in ATMB got ugly and needed to be closed or moved, but the underlying question on the rules did not get answered. He could of said “Nothing was wrong with the responses in GQ, now this thread is over the line warnings issued, thread closed.”
Actually, no, the question was in the right forum. The discussion was not. I.e., the thread got hijacked away from the original question, the answer to which is very simple: “We have one guiding principle: Don’t be a jerk.”
If you see somebody posting anything, in any forum, that causes you to think, “Wow, what a jerk,” report the post.
If we apply WWCD to this, then I think giving an answer based on an educated guess, followed by a light-hearted, snarky insult, would be just about appropriate to the spirit of the newspaper column.
So basically because two mods posted to that very thread without any sort of guidance toward less snark, that snark is acceptable? I just cannot buy that. As I stated in the locked ATMB thread, I am a glass half full kind of guy who understood that GD and the Pit where places to go to be exposed to assholes, not in GQ.
So since you know the sum total of the rules, was what brightpenny endured, jerkish? That was the question, and it remains unanswered.
Like any rules imposed on any social structure, they’re subject to interpretation, bias, and prejudice. I think people were being jerks in that thread. I think people are being jerks in most Pit threads. Very few of them ever get called on it. If the mods banned everybody who said anything jerkish, this would be a very quiet message board. Boring, too.
Yes but she did not write to Ed she asked in GQ, and very few of the answered dealt with the question. If it had been for the column, and Ed did not want to answer it, he would of ignored it. The same thing this group should of done.
They dealt with telling her about her perceived mental problems.
Sum of the story WWED, he would answer the question using facts and maybe suggest she has some problems (AFTER answering the question factually), or he would ignore the question.
Why thank you. Learn something new everyday. Today I learned two things, that and pancake syrup probably could be used as a cheap wax for hair removal. Ouch.
My concern for the ATMB thread was to drive a stake through the heart of what was rapidly becoming a train wreck. Polerius did post it in the correct forum, but the responses were becoming more and more inappropriate for that forum. (And I must apologize to Polerius. Somehow I got it in my head that brightpenny was the OP, and I would have worded my closing comments differently had I had that fact straight.)
I have just finished reading the GQ thread, and I believe the fact that neither rico nor samclem saw fit to pass out any warnings answers the question.
I don’t know all the rules (some might say ‘any’), but I would not have found the behaviour jerkish. And I most certainly would not have compared it to gang rape.
But I’m a jerk. When I find ultra-sensitive people* (ultra as defined by me and me alone), rather than respect the sensitivity, I mock it.
Note that I’m not saying that brightpenny is ultra-sensitive, as outside of those two threads, I’ve no idea about her (I think she’s a her, at least). My opinion is moving in that direction, and if she continues to post, and her posts display enough ultra-sensitivity to cause me to pay attention to user names*, I might solidify my opinion.
Normally I only read posts paying little attention to user names. Only if the post triggers a reaction of some sort, do I pay attention to the poster.*
***I’m just going with the flow here. I’m digging the multiple post-scripts.
1: Pancake on hair left to dry, will rip out hairs when removed.
2: It is etc.
3: :smack: One I already knew HAVE not should of, idiotic of me to speed past that.
4: If a mod posts in a thread, everything in that thread is forever deemed acceptable.
Of course, if it was Cecil answering, she would have gotten snarked on once, not 20 times, and the snark would have included some sort of factual answer. I don’t think any of those posts, individually, are a problem, it’s the sum total that is very unseemly. Like getting hit by a snowball, I mean it’s just a snowball, right? Until it’s 20 people ganging up on you at once, then it goes from “light hearted fun” to “ruined afternoon.”
At some point, someone should have previewed his snark, noticed that the same damn thing was already posted a dozen times, and just moved on.
I really can’t see anything but intentional disingenuity here, but I’ll just reiterate that if you think a post is inappropriate, you should report it. If nothing happens, that means that the mods have deemed it acceptable.