Mind-reading Moderators?

Well, another one of my threads has been closed.

I was NOT trying to make fun of the posters at the Christian Boylove Forums, I was simply drawing attention to something that I found shocking and unbelievable.

People post links to sites in MPSIMS all the time without getting their threads closed, in some cases making it clear they are making fun of the site. This isn’t the first time I have had a MPSIMS thread closed for questionable reasons, it’s happened before.

Baah, Badz, I wouldn’t worry about it. Mods are human, too. Sl… er, Czarcasm, closed one of my Tenacious D threads because he didn’t know what the fuck I was talking about. Sure, some Monty Python threads, or HGTTG threads stay open when they just seem, to an uninformed viewer, to be random quotes, but I guess sometimes ya gotta play the odds, no?

Just don’t start a goatse thread.


hmmmmm… Interesting. I dunno. On the surface, I’d tend to agree with you Badtz, it does seem strange. I’d like to find out more infor before making a judgement though. I do agree that there are a few MPSIMS as well as other threads that serve just to mock people. My question would be, would something like that be acceptable in the pit?

Badtz, look at what those two threads have in common (other than the fact that they are yours) and I think you’ll have your answer.

I wasn’t aware we weren’t allowed to make fun of sites–so much for Weird Earls…

Badtz, I am going to venture a guess on why the first thread was closed. I think it’s because in general, fighting ignorance is more than our goal, it’s our mission. Whereas spreading it is stomped upon hard.Making sense also helps a great deal around here. Or at least that’s how I felt after reading this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=60752
as opposed to your “ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!WHAT YOU SAY???” which made me think “Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, over”.

Yes, I’m old and didn’t even get there was a joke somewhere in there.

Yeah, yeah, we got the idea that you find the idea of “Christian Boy-Loving” to be odd. Everything else beyond that seems to be just gossip.

Lighten up, okay?

Well, in case you didn’t notice, UncleBeer said this when closing the thread:

Seems pretty clear to me.

I didn’t really read through the site mentioned, aside from a quick glance, but no one seemed to be advocating any form of pederasty. It seems like a place where people who happen to find themselves attracted to boys and at the same time believe in Christianity can discuss the issues they face. I don’t believe that people have control over their sexual preference, so I really can’t condemn anyone for who they find attractive. Having sex with adolescents is, of course, wrong, but I didn’t see any evidence that they advocated that.

I would think that the link would be more appropriate to a GD thread about the ethics of pedophilia that is never acted on, or something. I’d be rather interested intellectually to have a look through the site and see what their perspective is, but also simply turned off by discussion of young boys as objects of desire.

Either way, I agree that while the title is rather ironic sounding, to post the link just to laugh at those who have sexual urges that their sense of morals prevents them from fulfilling. Kinda like making fun of me for having sexual urges that every woman in the world’s disinterest in me prevents me from fulfilling.

Oh, and I found the screen names adapted from HGTTG odd, and oddly out of place. I have difficulty seeing Ford Prefect as human, much less a Christian pedophile.

I have a great deal of compassion for pedophiles and anybody else who, whether through genetics or upbringing, desires something that society says they can’t have. If this site was simply Christians who were discussing the problems they had fighting their desires, I wouldn’t have even mentioned it, there are tons of similar sites all over the internet and they server a good purpose. What shocked me about this site is that I found several posts where someone mentioned that they had acted on their urges again, and other posters would tell them it was OK, that God forgives them, that as long as nobody was hurt no harm was done, etc. It seems more a site for justifying your actions than trying to prevent them. This IS unusual, and was interested in seeing what other Dopers thought about it.

If I was simply wanting to mock these people, I would have posted the link in The Pit. Maybe I should have posted it in Great Debates, not sure. I am bothered that it was assumed I was trying to “attempt to make sport of these people” and “poke fun at a group of people” when I made a post explaining why I thought the link was worth posting.

Well, your OP simply said “Now I’ve seen everything…” in the title, then a link in the body, and nothing else. Not exactly a springboard for an in depth analysis of intriguing ethical issues.

Fair enough. Then next time, type your thoughts out in the OP. Post links to the threads on that site you found questionable - provided the links don’t break our rules, of course. And yeah, post something like this -if substantiated as you did above- in GD, by all means.
As you implied, we can’t read minds (actually, you sarcastically implied the opposite. I know). Therefore, we sometimes have to go by what seems to be the most simple explanation. Mocking thread title, just a link? UncleBeer worded it pretty well, I think. It looked like you were making fun of these people.

Have you looked at the thread in question? I posted my explanation quite a bit of time before it was locked.

All right. Let me ask this since you are (still) mute on the subject. What was your reason for posting that link, and nothing else, on this message board?

As for mind-reading, if you do not choose to explain your intentions clearly, you leave everyone the option of interpreting your actions in any light they see fit. Right?

Mute? I’ve explained it repeatedly. I was shocked by this site, and posted a link to see what other posters thought of it.

This quote is from an email a yet-unnamed board administrator sent to kabbes (he posted it here). I wonder if this has anything to do with my threads getting closed all the time for seemingly trivial reasons.

I opened that thread, it was in MPSIMS, entitled “now I’ve seen everything”, no wording, just a link, that did not contain any identifying lingo (as in http://www. sickf***cs.com for example), and so clicked on it.

I trusted that here at the Straight Dope, if there was anything questionable, the person wouldn’t have posted the link, or at the very least, would have had some warning words with it.

It appeared that I was wrong.

I work with convicts, so have met many pedophiles. I am a strong advocate against the Megan’s Laws. however, to me, there was a fine line crossed there. I believe there is a good debate to be had on the subject, but, of course, that belongs in Great Debates.

From your later comments (specifically “I could see someone being persuaded that it’s OK to act on these impulses by reading some of the content of this forum.”) - you are aware that there are kids here, that posters here have kids, do we really want to lead them to this site?

Anyhow, I’d happily participate in the GD, would have strongly preferred to have had a description of what I was clicking on to before I clicked. And the thread, as presented, and developed, was not IMHO appropriate for MPSIMS.

No. It has absolutely nothing to do with your thread being closed.

It’s also completely false. If any administrator sent that to kabbles, A) they did it without discussing it with the other moderators; B) they can’t spell worth crap- Badtz Marn? danielinthevolvesden?; C) they are unfamiliar with the fact that The Straight Dope is actually three words, not two.

Needless to say, it’s a fraud, and we’re working on figuring out who sent it out. There is no vendetta against you from the moderators, Badtz. In this case, it was just that Uncle Beer felt that your reasons for showing the link were insufficiently clear, and that you were just offering the people up for ridicule.


Bullshit, Badtz. You’ve only now given any rationale for posting that link. If you wanted to know what people thought of it, you’d have asked in the OP. Also, you’d have posted it in the correct forum.

Jeez, you’d swear that the administrators were robots that were incapable of forming their won opinions… :rolleyes
Badtz, your full of shit. You really are incredibly annoying.

and you can quote me on that.

Just to clarify (the linked ATMB thread finishes by clearing up the confusion) - some unnamed reader/poster wanted to e-mail me but couldn’t since I do not publish my e-mail address. It instead got sent to the SD administration, who then forwarded it to me. The e-mail was not written by, nor endorsed by, any administrator of this board. BM - I’m sure there is no anti-Badtz conspiracy going on!

And to stop rumours - I did not recognise the authors name. If it was by a regular of this board they were not using their SD SN. Nor was it particularly unwelcome - I just did not wish to respond to it with an e-mail.



Ho ho.