I know the terms of use give broad powers to the mods and that’s fine; my one complaint about other boards is that the mods don’t have enough power.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if that power gave mods the right to close threads that belonged on other boards rather than simply move them - but that isnt what typically happens.
Now the OP’s response to manhattan’s reply wasn’t the friendliest call for clarification I’ve seen but it certainly isnt atypical. As a matter of fact many mods (certainly not all) are incredibly gruff in their response to the slightest breach of ettiquette from even a new board member. While the OP’s response may have been a bit harsh, it wasnt entirely inaccurate especially given the facile throwaway tone of manhattan’s reply.
Manhattan however decides that the thread is “insipid” and that the poster is a “dick.” I for one didnt think the thread was insipid at all and apparently neither did others. And quite frankly, many of the topics that have theoretical answers stay on the general questions board until they do degenerate into Great Debates.
Bottom line is manhattan acted on this thread for personal reasons and was significantly more immmature in his response than the OP was to manhattan’s. I have seen manhattan act like this before and he reminds me of the Comic Bookstore guy from the Simpsons. I think he owes this guy and the board an apology. Or does this thread belong in “IMHO?”
Main Entry: 1mar·shal
Variant(s): also mar·shall /'mär-sh&l/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French mareschal, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German marahscalc marshal, from marah horse + scalc servant
Date: 13th century
1 a : a high official in the household of a medieval king, prince, or noble originally having charge of the cavalry but later usually in command of the military forces b : a person who arranges and directs the ceremonial aspects of a gathering
2 a : FIELD MARSHAL b : a general officer of the highest military rank
3 a : an officer having charge of prisoners b (1) : a ministerial officer appointed for a judicial district (as of the U.S.) to execute the process of the courts and perform various duties similar to those of a sheriff (2) : a city law officer entrusted with particular duties c : the administrative head of a city police department or fire department
Again, I don’t see the big deal. The closing of the thread was eminently defendable - as I understand it GQ is for realistic questions with factual answers, which this, whether interesting or not, was not. And if you would be snide to people, as the OP was, I don’t see cause for complaint if people are snide back.
What might be cause for complaint is that Manhattan seemed to tolerate the thread being in GQ until the poster was nasty to him in his (manhattan’s) capacity as poster. So it might be a reasonable decision, driven in part by personal bias. Not sure how to treat that.
Gotta laugh at my use of “marshall.” I wish I could say that it was a concious witty double entendre but it wasn’t. Having said that, I am retroclassifying it as a witty double entendre.
Izzy - it’s fine to meet snide with snide, but not use your power as a mod for retribution which is clearly the case here.
I put this post in here based on the topics regarding “concerns about the SDMB” but now I see it might belong in the BBQ pit which is a pretty sad commentary on the moderation of this board if legitimate criticism is not extinguished from flaming. And yes, my subject post was slightly inflammatory but the beef was legit.
manhattan’s closing of the thread and comments were completely justified. The comment by the OP was deliberately snide and insulting to manhattan, without real cause. Even though it does seem to me that manny may have misread the OP - so? It sure as shit didn’t warrant the sarky post back.
If snide remarks are justification for closing threads then lock up the whole board now.
If the post belongs in another forum, then move it as is typically done.
If the rules state that mods have the right to lock threads started in wrong forums then use criteria other then simply thinking the post insipid and the OP a dick for doing so.
It’s pretty ironic btw that manhattan lists civil liberties as one of his interests.
I understand your point, and agree that an unemotional robotlike moderator might have done a bit different. But I didn’t see any real consequence here - no warnings or threats to ban. Just closing the thread, which I think is justified in any event. So no big deal.
Maybe reopen the thread in a different forum and continue from there.
To be truthful, it really wasn’t a General Questions kind of a deal . . . and it got more play than it truly deserved.
For that one, Manny cut you a break.
Then you got rude with him. It’s never a good idea to be impolite to a moderator.
So you follow a good turn on his part with a jerky move on your part and you feel offended now that he jumped in your stuff?
I’da probably closed it or moved much sooner.
Are we mean? I don’t think so. We don’t ask a lot of you folks – the rules here are simple and civil – and if we get a little snappish sometimes, well, we deal with a lot of grief and sometimes Too Much Is Just Enough.
Kid, sorry if you got your feelings hurt but you could do better next time. There’s a ton of posters on this board all of us adore and you could do far worse than to follow in their footsteps. Look around and see how we prefer to do things, take a lesson.
I read that. A disclaimer doesn’t mean you can put something in the wrong forum, and if you’re going to admit to flaming someone, don’t be a hypocrite and stick your tongue out at everyone else for not being able to make ‘legitimate criticism’.
If you knew it was inflammatory, why did you put it in here?
TubaDiva,
There is only one problem with your argument. I didnt post the thread. I already said I didnt condone his behavior. But your response was metered and kind so I wont ask if you ever read the original post.
cmon that was funny.
from flaming. And yes, my subject post was slightly inflammatory but the beef was legit.