Well- I agree with the rule in principle, but the line is too fine in actual practice. Some questions do tend to have opinion like answers (IMHO), and some GQ are better off in GD. For instance- look at my reply under AHunter3’s “mea culpa”. It’s an opinion in a way, an arguement. True, it does address the OP, and in a factual way, but that question is impossible to answer without some opinions or politics. Now, I’d say my post is legit (but comes close to being a “manhattan no-no”), and AHunter’s crosses the line- but just minimally. But that’s what I mean about the line being too fine.
What I personally dislike is those who answer a GQ query with a joke answer- BEFORE the “real” or straight answer is posted. I think this is far more annoying than a political opinion.
However, if this was my - I’d have no “bannings” for “being a jerk” (spammers, trolls, & sock puppets, yes). It seems clear that some long established posters were banned for “jerk-like” behavior that was tolerated in others who had more PC opinions. Not that the “banned” weren’t “jerks” in at least a few posts- it is just that the rules seem to be too subjective, and applied too often based upon personalities. Of course- since we don’t get to read the private emails that pass between the “bannees” and the “ban-ers”, there likely could be more than meets the eye.
But I won’t give Manhattan too a hard time over his decision. Moderating GQ is the hardest job here, methinks.
Hear, hear. (I’ve complained about this before, especially about (har) random guesses in response to legal questions.) If you don’t know the answer, don’t respond. Nobody around here is going to repect you just because you have a high post count. And what your brother-in-law’s mechanic said about estate planning don’t cut it as a reliable source. Shit, I’m a lawyer and generally don’t respond to criminal law questions. I don’t know enough.
I’m not saying that you should be a lawyer to respond to law questions. But unless you have some special knowledge, it’s safe to assume that your best reponse is silence. Someone who actually knows the answer will be along soon.
(I will say that the number of nonsense posts by one notorious offender has recently dropped dramatically. If that’s a result of mod action, I applaud it.)
People who repeatedly give out wrong information which could be hazardous.
People who refuse to back up their claims with any forms of cite or evidence, and continuing to do so, after being prompted to the contraty many times
Wanna-be lawyers
People who taint every “fact” they post with their opinion.
** People who don’t bother reading the thread they’re participating in, so that they post the exact same thing as a bunch of other posters*
It is annoying to read the exact thing over and over. I don’t mean simulposts or clarifications, of course.
OP- What’s the third letter than end with “gry?”
Post 1- Hmm, angry? hungry?
Post 2- Must be a trick question, my dictionary doesn’t have anything else.
Post 3- [Link to Cecil] Cecil answered it. The answer is “gry,” it’s a unit of measurement.
Post 4 random hijack
Post 5 random hijack
-three hours later-
Post 12 Isn’t it some kind of measurement? I think I heard this one before…
Just read the thread! It’s a slap in the face to the OP, the person who answered, and everyone else in between. This doesn’t happen too often in the heavier forums, thankfully, but when it does, you have to ask, what the hell was the point of you participating here?
*-Just to keep my ass covered re: misquoting, that list was adapted from Anthracite for the purposes of that lame joke.
There’s nothing to stop them, Tarantara. However, if they return under a different name and are caught, they’ll of course be banned again. If someone is careful and doesn’t post much about themselves, doesn’t have a distinctive writing style, doesn’t focus on particular areas of interest, and doesn’t get in trouble with the Mods, then they probably won’t be caught. But if they slip up and get the notice of the Mods, who can compare the IP of the new poster with banned posters (and this may or may not match, of course, even if it’s the same poster, depending on their ISP and other factors), then they may be found out.
Some people who are banned do return under a different name. It seems like many of them can’t resist letting slip who they are, and so they get banned again. Then again, there’s no way to measure how many don’t get caught. But if they’re posting normally and not attracting the attention of the Mods, then, in my humble opinion, it’s not such a huge deal, as, in a desire to remain hidden, they’ll be following all the rules except that one.
well, this whole incident sure taught me a lesson. namely, stay out of GQ, less i do something that might be misconstrued as unfactual and get bannified.
I admit, I find the ‘discussions’ in GQ relevant sometimes. It’s very possible to pose a question regarding certain facts and end up discussing several sets of facts that might be pertinent.
Hey, it’s their board. But a policy of ‘only answer factually’ is probably just going to end in tears. Really, you’re ‘bringing on the heartbreak’ folks. Far too few questions have simple factual answers. Certainly not in this crowd, God knows.
Tars, and others, to quote the man “NO ONE GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS IN GENERAL QUESTIONS!” If you can’t tell the difference between your opinion and fact, it’s not the mod’s problem. If the question doesn’t have a factual answer, but is a matter of opinion, then it belongs in IMHO. WAIT TILL IT’S MOVED THERE before expressing your opinion, as it could very well be that you’re wrong and there IS a factual answer. If the question doesn’t have a factual answer, but many potential answers that are open to debate, it belongs in GD. If the question has a factual answer (which the linked thread should have), but somebody wants an excuse to start a debate on some topic that’s only tangentally related to the OP (as happened in the linked thread), then that person should open his own damned GD thread and leave the GQ thread alone.
Jonathan, discussion/challenges to the facts of an answer should be encouraged. Somebody suggesting something that’s partially right may trip a circuit in somebody’s brain that lets them come up with the right answer. Someone else can come in and dispute assumptions made in an answer. This is all in the realm of answering a question. Mention of the USA in a thread asking about countries that have banned non-christian religions clearly has no relevance to the question being asked. Surely you can see the difference?
It’s about fucking time that heads got knocked. Here’s hoping that more do.
WTF is it with all this “GQ scares me now!” nonsense? The staff acted in accordance with a rule that has existed for weeks now. There was a Sticky at the top of the forum to draw attention to this rule. The rule was straightforward and simple. People got warned when they broke the rule. Now, the rule was enforced, and the people who broke it got banned.
So where’s the problem? What’s so unreasonable? And moreover, what the hell is there to be scared about?
True enough. But let’s use some context here. If the question doesn’t invite a factual answer, I will (and have) shown more leeway. If an aside isn’t some bullshit polemic specifically designed to hijack a factual thread for the poster’s purposes, then I will (and have) shown more leeway. In areas where the hijacks or discussions don’t detract from members’ ability to ask and answer factual questions, I will (and have) shown more leeway. Heck, I let the gearheads, royalty buffs and grammar folks go on for pages and pages.
What I’m concerned about here is the persistent pattern of seizing just about any question about political or religious matters and turning it into a debate or a rant. We already have forums for debates and rants. In fact, we <i>created</i> forums for debates and rants specifically to get them the heck out of GQ so people could ask and answer questions free from that stuff. That under good moderatorship those forums have blossomed into "core products"of the board in their own right is a bonus.
If folks like zuma and Tars Tarkas honestly think that “Some would consider the United States to be a “radically Christian” country” is even a little tiny bit probative to “I was wondering if there are CURRENTLY (not in the past) any countries that require people to be Christian. And outlaw other religious books,” particularly when the questioner asked for “Just the facts no debate,” then it’s probably for the best that they refrain from posting in GQ.
The exact same thing that is stopping any banned member from taking four minutes to write and send an email to the mods sincerely apologizing for breaking the rules and getting legitimately reinstated and thus being able to continue posting without worrying about revealing their identity and the possibility of getting rebanned at any time without warning.
Well. It looks like I’m the first one to make a public reappearance.
Tarantara, if I follow your reasoning, your suggesting that because we broke the rules regarding GQ political content, we have such a total disregard for rules and procedure that we think sock puppets are perfectly fine too. I certainly don’t. People have offered a wide range of opinions on how serious my violation was, and there has been some healthy back-and-forth on the nature of GQ. On the other hand, no one ever stands up for sock puppets, including myself as well as the other banned members.
I ran afoul of a GQ rule; I rarely post there as people rarely ask about my pet topics, and wasn’t as aware as I should have been of the rules. I admit that I never read the new sticky, because I couldn’t imagine that there was any rule that would be so easy for me to break. IRL I’m rarely if ever a jerk and have made it to 2059 posts in the SDMB without making any conscious effort to follow the rules, other than just being my usually non-jerkish self. I apologize to anyone I might have annoyed or offended in the past.
Ahhh (breathes a sigh of relief). Now I feel more secure. Thanks for this clarification. Like I said, some questions call for replies that are much more “opinions” than “facts”, and I am certainly guilty of supplying those opinions in that case.
Thank you for the clarification, i was under the impression the new rule would result in my banning if i replied to a poster who asked for recipies for three types of cakes, gave him two, then said i didn’t have the third i because i didn’t like it. Which was my opinion and would have caused my bannation. The constant political swips at W and Clinton in everythread are a bit much.
