# Moderating When You're Involved **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 20, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821 "2010-10-20T21:31:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/61 "2010-10-29T04:36:42Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Another Mod should take action if they are participating _and emotionally invested_ in the thread. I can perhaps see that in issuing a warning, but a thread closure, when another thread has been opened and is available for discussion? Meh. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/62 "2010-10-29T05:56:47Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I can perhaps see that in issuing a warning, but a thread closure, when another thread has been opened and is available for discussion? Meh. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/63 "2010-10-29T17:38:38Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > However, she was entirely correct in closing the thread subsequently. Per his own remarks, the OP had apparently decided what he was going to do. The thread had become a debate, and was no longer suitable for MPSIMS. Since another thread had been started in GD, the MPSIMS thread was redundant and there was no point in leaving it open. Was the GD thread opened before the MPSIMS one was locked? I totally misrememberd that. Going back and checking, I see now that you’re correct. The AA debate thread opened at about 4:30 p.m. on October 19, while \*\*twickster \*\*locked the original one in MPSIMS at about 6:35 a.m. the next day. So, this isn’t nearly as disturbing to me as it originally was. However, the fact remains that before a second thread was started, \*\*twickster \*\*\*specifically forbade \*people to respond to \*the OP’s actual question \*by discussing the relative merits of AA: [**twickster** :](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php) > [@](#): > > Enough with the hijack. If y’all want to debate AA again, start a thread in GD. > > In this thread, let’s focus on offering some help to the OP. I still fail to see how responding to an OP who asks whether or not AA would be useful with a discussion of whether or not AA is useful is “hijacking” and not “offering some help to the OP,” other than “it’s not what \*\*twickster \*\*personally wants to hear.” At that point in the thread, before there was another thread, would you have ordered people to stop discussing a point of discussion relevant to the OP? Or would you have simply moved the thread, if you felt the entire thread was inappropriate for MPSIMS? > [@](#): > > Suggesting that we recuse ourselves and go find another mod to take action every time an issue comes up in a thread we are participating in is frankly not realistic. IIRC, there’s exactly one person who’s suggested this, and everyone else has told him that it’s absolutely not feasible. Those of us who’re suggesting recusal are specifically limiting it to circumstances where the moderator has a _clear conflict of interest_, especially when they are emotionally involved to the extent that they are already breaking the board rules they’re supposed to be enforcing. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/64 "2010-10-29T18:48:34Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > At that point in the thread, before there was another thread, would you have ordered people to stop discussing a point of discussion relevant to the OP? Or would you have simply moved the thread, if you felt the entire thread was inappropriate for MPSIMS? At that point in the thread, some people were continuing to address the OP, while others were intent on debating AA amongst themselves. Since debates are not appropriate for MPSIMS, it was entirely appropriate for **twickster** to give instructions to take the debate to GD, as she did, rather than moving the entire thread. I frequently take the same course in GQ, and I would have done the same if I were a MPSIMS moderator. This is standard practice in forums outside GD. Once the OP had indicated he had received sufficient feedback to decide what he was going to do, and the GD thread had been opened, the thread was redundant, and closure was appropriate. > [@](#): > > IIRC, there’s exactly one person who’s suggested this, and everyone else has told him that it’s absolutely not feasible. Those of us who’re suggesting recusal are specifically limiting it to circumstances where the moderator has a _clear conflict of interest_, especially when they are emotionally involved to the extent that they are already breaking the board rules they’re supposed to be enforcing. You might have a point if **twickster’s** actions subsequent to her remarks to **AClockworkMelon** had been outside of the norms of dealing with a debate in a MPSIMS thread. But they were not. I see nothing wrong with the way **twickster** moderated the thread after the interaction with **Melon.** ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/65 "2010-10-29T19:16:20Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > At that point in the thread, some people were continuing to address the OP, while others were intent on debating AA amongst themselves. Pardon me for asking this repeatedly, but how is a debate of AA \*not \*addressing the OP? I’ll remind you, this is \*the actual text \*of the OP: > [@](#): > > 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? So can you please explain how a debate on the efficacy of AA is \*not \*a valid response to this request? ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/66 "2010-10-29T19:20:53Z")
So I could have moved the thread to GD immediately. I didn’t. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/67 "2010-10-29T19:52:17Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > So I could have moved the thread to GD immediately. I didn’t. Sorry. It’s hard to tell since it’s text, but I’m going to assume that this is sincere and not sarcastic. Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/68 "2010-10-29T19:53:49Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I still fail to see how responding to an OP who asks whether or not AA would be useful with a discussion of whether or not AA is useful is “hijacking” and not “offering some help to the OP,” other than “it’s not what \*\*twickster \*\*personally wants to hear.” I think you’re just going to have to live with the fact that many people disagree with you on this point. The OP had reservations about AA but asked if there was value. Some exchange in the thread about AA having value served the OP, but once there were some comments that “AA helped me” and some comments that “the statistics don’t show AA being helpful”, that point was covered. The main issue for the OP was “I think I have a problem, what should I do?” An in depth debate over the merits of AA as a program is beyond “what should I do?” and does not belong in MPSIMS. As for the appropriateness of closing the thread over moving the thread, here are the possibilities when a thread diverges from the forum it started in: 1. Content was never feasible for that forum: a] move the thread to the appropriate forum, perhaps a note to post in the correct forum. b] close the thread with a note or warning (for blatant repeat offenders). 2. Question was asked about a topic suitable for that forum, but topic is quickly hijacked in a non forum-matching direction: a] move the thread to the new forum; perhaps give note to clarify. b] give warnings for hijacking thread, keep thread where it is and try to fight back on topic. 3. Question was asked about a topick suitable for that forum, some on topic discussion occurs, then a hijack starts interspersed with relevant posts: a] move the thread to the forum for the hijack, ensuring that the OP’s point is lost and the non-Debate content is out of place. b] tell everyone to take the hijack elsewhere and stay on topic, then close the thread for people failing to stay on topic after being told to do so. c] close the thread for being to tangled up and tell everyone to start over. * * * In case 1, moving the thread makes more sense over closing the thread, except in the case of blatant repeat offenders who have been repeatedly told to post in the correct forum. That is the least intrusive - it allows the discussion to continue on topic but in the correct forum. This was not the case observed. Case 2 is a little more gray than case 1, because the OP didn’t make a mistake, but the posters involved have changed the topic/directed the thread in such a way it doesn’t belong where it is. Moving the thread can make sense if the bulk of conversation is on the new topic direction. Trying to return the topic to the OP can be difficult if the hijack is taking most of the discussion. There may be benefit to letting the hijack be the new topic, especially if the OP isn’t unhappy. Alternately, if caught early, the hijack can be headed off and the thread returned to the question the OP asked, and thus keeping the thread on the OP in the current forum. Typically in this case all the conversation has shifted, despite the OP, so moving it is most sense. This is not the case observed. Case 3 is the fuzziest. The OP asked a question in the appropriate forum, some appropriate on topic discussion is occurring, but there is an interspersed hijack that clearly belongs in a different forum or a different thread. Moving the thread only makes the other half of the content out of place (why are you having a MPSIMS discussion in the middle of my Great Debate?) Telling the posters to make a new thread to discuss the hijack and keep the main thread on target doesn’t always work, because the posters involved apparently think they know better than the mod where they should post that discussion, and so they don’t take the conversation elsewhere, they keep going in that thread. Ergo, mod closes thread. I submit to you that **twickster** saw this thread as a case 3, tried to direct the hijack to a different thread in GD, and when that failed, closed the thread rather than moving MPSIMS (or actually IMHO - it probably would have been better suited there) content to GD. I submit that **Colibri** agrees this is case 3 and agrees with the action taken. I understand you disagree that the topic was a hijack, and perhaps you’re not alone, but not everyone agrees with you. Maybe this isn’t something that can reach agreement on. This seems to be an issue of perception. It’s a matter of scope of discussion, not that any of that topic was included. I don’t know if there’s any way to convince you, but I don’t think you’ll be able to convince the mods, either. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/69 "2010-10-29T20:01:31Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I think you’re just going to have to live with the fact that many people disagree with you on this point. The OP had reservations about AA but asked if there was value. Some exchange in the thread about AA having value served the OP, but once there were some comments that “AA helped me” and some comments that “the statistics don’t show AA being helpful”, that point was covered. Why do you say it’s covered? We have threads here that go on for dozens of pages back and forth between two opposing viewpoints. The issue doesn’t get resolved just because I said “A” and you said “B.” We don’t throw up our hands and say, “Well, I guess we’ll never know!” We discuss it–at least, we should on this site. Since it’s devoted to fighting ignorance and all. > [@](#): > > The main issue for the OP was “I think I have a problem, what should I do?” An in depth debate over the merits of AA as a program is beyond “what should I do?” and does not belong in MPSIMS. But the OP explicitly mentioned that he wanted information, opinions, and advice on AA. How is it not offering that to debate whether or not it’s actually worthwhile? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/70 "2010-11-01T16:58:17Z")
This conversation is going nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![Ostrya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/35a633/32.png) [@Ostrya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ostrya)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/71 "2010-11-01T17:16:45Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > This conversation is going nowhere. The conversation serves the purpose of giving **Shot From Guns** something to do while she’s supposed to be working. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/72 "2010-11-01T17:32:45Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > This conversation is going nowhere. It was dead until you resurrected it. And why? To no useful purpose that can be seen. For that reason, I am closing this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821.md?page=3)