The OP was specifically a question about attending AA. Whether or not AA actually helps alcoholics is absolutely and 100% on topic. What it is not, is convenient for people like **twickster **who have a deep *personal belief *that AA helped them, in the face of much evidence that they would have done just as well with another method, or no method at all. So, you’re allowed to help the OP all you want, as long as your helping is to tell him that AA is great and not that it might not do anything for you.
Call me crazy, but shouldn’t being so invested in a topic that you actually break one of the primary rules of the board and drag another poster through the mud outside the Pit be a tipoff that you do not have the perspective on a subject to properly moderate the thread?
If the moderators are allowed to start locking threads any time anyone brings up points of discussion that they find personally disagreeable, this community will swiftly cease to be (a) fun and (b) devoted to fighting ignorance.
No comment on the thread subject. Just wanted to ask why there is no mouseover viewable for this thread, when all the other threads on the front page show in mouseover?
Yes, I called Melon an asshole – I also apologized for it.
I let a “piss off” go by – it’s not something I would ordinarily write a mod note on, and I saw no reason to in this case.
When the thread turned into a debate, I could have moved the whole thing to Great Debates, but I wanted to leave the thread open in case people had specific feedback or suggestions for the OP. Turns out no one had anything else they wanted to talk about, so I closed it.
Other than regretting calling Melon an asshole (for which, again, I apologized as soon as I was online again), I’m totally okay with how I comported myself in that thread.
The point is that you were pissed off enough by the discussion to unthinkingly break one of the biggest rules of this board. A rule you’re responsible for enforcing. That says a lot about your state of mind.
It wasn’t a GQ thread–it was in MPSIMS. (And when was the last time you locked a GQ thread after it was answered?) Too, the discussion on the efficacy of AA was absolutely germane to the OP. You simply found some of the things people were saying about AA to be offensive because they disagreed with your personal experience. But instead of dealing with this on-topic, relevant discussion as a poster, by refuting their points with evidence, you instead put on your mod hat and used your position on this board to shut down a thread that was personally inconvenient.
Not because it was off-topic. Not because anybody (but you) was insulting each other. Not because the OP asked for it to be closed. Because you, twickster, don’t like it when people say that AA has no better chance of working than any other method of dealing with alcoholism.
Let’s look again at what the OP actually said: "I would like to get some advice/support/be berated - whatever. […] I’ve looked up AA meetings in the area but I feel almost silly going. Not sure if it is the answer for me. Any thoughts from anyone? Where else can I go, what else should I consider?"
That is absolutely an OP that justifies a debate on whether or not AA is useful. A moderator of all people should appreciate that one of the strengths of this community is our general reliance on and appreciation of evidence over anecdotes. A moderator fighting evidence she doesn’t like by shutting down a thread instead of refuting it with more evidence is beyond the pale.
The fact that you think that you can flip a switch and go from being so incensed that you break a major board rule to being 100% objective says a lot. I think that if you step back and consider things more carefully, you’ll see that there’s really no way for you to be a disinterested party when it comes to discussions of AA on this board, and you should recuse yourself from moderating them accordingly.
Let’s say there was an OP by someone seeking advice on what religion they should be a part of. The OP mentions that they were raised Catholic but they’re open to other options. Several posters argue against the RCC, pointing out the history of covering up abuse, the ongoing persecution of those who bring accusations of abuse, the necessary treatment of women as second-class members of the Church, the official hard line against LGBT people and birth control, etc. **tomndebb **comes in, says the thread has gotten off-topic, and locks it. Would you see that as an appropriate action?
How about if I started a thread on what kind of hardware I should use to hang pictures, mentioning that I’ve seen those monkey hook things you push through the wall and wondering if they’re actually any good. Some posters say that they’ve had good luck with them, and others say they didn’t work at all. The two groups of posters start discussing what they know about how the hooks work, when they’ve seen them fail, etc. Would you lock that thread?
I didn’t read the whole thread. I did read the first page.
Having some discussion that AA might not work for everyone is appropriate because the OP asked about AA. Having a lengthy debate in MPSIMS about the validity of AA is getting beyond the forum descriptions.
A MPSIMS Mod is fully correct to head off or close a debate starting in MPSIMS. Even one she feels personally motivated about.
The one thing that bugs me is twickster’s apology. She repeats asshole 2 more times. I know tone of voice can be difficult to discern on a message board, but that “apology” comes off as an attempt to call Melon an asshole again. Twice. Maybe it’s just me.
A lengthy debate about the merits of AA is absolutely on-topic for the thread when the two major points of the OP were:
1.) Am I an alcoholic?
2.) Should I deal with this through AA or another channel?
When the OP has explicitly asked about whether or not AA will be useful, debating whether or not AA will be useful is answering the OP’s question. That it’s a complex issue with a lot of strong feelings and personal involvement just means that it’s not something that will get a simple yes/no that everyone immediately aggrees with.
Really, the thread was just in the wrong forum. The OP didn’t just want to talk about his potential alcoholism–he wanted people to weigh in on it. It wasn’t something he was just sharing. The thread should have been moved to IMHO or GD; locking it only makes sense if you want to shut people up. Which there was zero legitimate reason to do.
I would not take any issue with **twickster **or another moderator *moving *the thread to a more appropriate forum. However, that’s not what she did. What she did was shut up people who were telling her, as a poster, that she was wrong. *After *she’d already demonstrated that her *personal emotional investment *in the topic was clouding her judgement.
It’s really bad form for a Moderator to post in a thread that starts to get heated, especially when they are one of the heated parties, and then attempt to moderate in the same thread. The proper thing to do, in my opinion, is to get another Moderator who is presumable unbiased to assist.
Because most of the moderators and staff here are active and welcome participants in a wide array of threads. Most, if not all, of them were chosen at one point or another from the community of regular members. If a condition of becoming a moderator were that you had to stop participating, do you think anyone would want the job?
Most of the moderators here are pretty good most of the time about separating their “private poster” personas from their roles as board staff.
Honestly, the OP in “I Think I’m an Alcoholic” posted looking for practical advice. A full-blown debate on the merits of AA was severely off-topic. After a few exchanges, the debate should have been firmly moved over to GD, leaving the discussion in the MPSIMS thread to it’s original intent.
I didn’t say they had to stop participating–just that it seems sensible they not participate in and moderate the same threads. Like judges recusing themselves.
All the forums have multiple moderators. Presumably even more could be added, if necessary. Nobody wants or needs to participate in every thread. And under such a rule, every individual moderator would still be able to participate in every thread she or he chose to–it would just mean that, having made the choice to participate, if moderation is needed in that thread, one of the other mods can do it.
I don’t actually see that it imposes much limitations, except that it specifically avoids the issue you raised here.
To be clear, I am not saying that twickster’s moderation of that thread was wrong. It’s just that she shouldn’t have been the one to make the calls once she was emotionally involved in the thread. Like someone said upthread, it’s like a judge recusing herself. An exception should be made for a spam bomb or if someone started making death threats or something but there is no real harm in a few more posts getting into a thread like the one in this discussion.
Really? Someone asks “Is X useful,” and you think it’s *off topic *to debate whether or not X is useful? :dubious:
99% of the time, it’s not necessary. Where there is no emotional involvement, there’s no conflict of interest.
I guess a good analogy would be that I think what you’re suggesting would be the equivalent of not letting a judge who’s ever filled up their car’s tank preside over a case that involved a gas station robbery.
Exactly. Anytime that someone *can *potentially see a conflict of interest, regardless of whether the mod actually let their personal feelings influence the decision, they shouldn’t be the one acting in an official capacity.
Why? Personally, when I ask a question, I like to have it answered as thoroughly as possible. If the question is complex, I don’t just expect two people with different points of view to state them, throw up their hands, and then say, “Well, I guess we’ll never know which of us is right!”
Was there any indication that *the OP *was bothered? AFAICT, the only person who wanted everyone to shut up was twickster, and she was bothered on a personal level, not because any board rules were being broken. Well, except by her, when she leveled a personal insult at someone who had the temerity to disagree with her personal experience.
If **twickster **would like a forum where no one is allowed to say “cunt” or bad things about AA, perhaps she should follow Giraffe’s lead and establish her own splinter board. I respectfully maintain that while she is a moderator at this board, she should restrict herself to enforcing the rules as they exist here.