Can an OP restrict replies to a thread to ones of his or her liking? Certainly, OPs often request posters to limit their replies to one specific aspect of an issue, but is this binding? Does posting something besides a simple answer in a poll thread, e.g., necessarily (or usually) violate the “don’t be a jerk” rule?
In my experience, such things are generally only addressed by mods in extreme situations, where a thread has effectively been derailed, and then with general admonitions prior to poster-specific warnings. Mods don’t otherwise usually step in to enforce the requests of the OP.
I was surprised therefore in this thread to be admonished by Czarcasm for asking about a broken link in this post by Guinestasia.
In this case, however, the mod was the OP, which confuses things slightly. Since Czarcasm didn’t do the “mod hat on” thing, I don’t know if he was acting a mod or not. This is relevant and important because if he was, then it indicates that I had already crossed a line I ought not to have. If, on the other hand, he was just posting as the OP, then I will certainly respect his request, but won’t assume that all off-topic posts are automatically verboten. (I might also add that it was a cranky reply if I wasn’t actually violating board rules.) BTW, I have emailed Czarcasm about this, but recieved no reply.
Oops. Looks like I broke Czar’s rule in that thread as well. I overlooked the “post once” thing, and injected a post to explain to the statistics compiler that Quaker is not necessarily Christian. Sorry about that, Czar.
It’s not helped by this bit, from that post. The first sounds like a request from an OP, but the second clearly sounds like a mod warning and it came from a mod.
Looking at the posts you made before the one that Czarcasm ** quoted, it looks to me like you (and Snakespirit) had a few posts there that weren’t stating your religion, but devolving into a conversation about a broken link… Had there been just one, I’d guessCzarcasm ** would have overlooked it. And **Snakespirit ** really did come across as doing nothing more than posting for the sake of posting - a violation of policy, regardless of the “rules” stated in the OP.
True. I’d have been shocked if he’d responded to just one post (and I doubt he would have). The fact that I posted more than once is just enough to make me wonder if I really was verging on being a jerk. I didn’t think I was overstepping even good etiquette, much less policy, but I want to be sure.
That should be “overstepping the bounds even of good etiquette, much less violating policy”.
I meant to add that his comment to you seemed more OP-ish (and on its own, doesn’t strike me in any way as any kind of official admonition): “Knock off sullying my poll, wouldja?” and the one to **Snakespirit ** more mod-ish.
The impression I got was that that particular thread is meant to be an actual poll, rather than the usual statements-of-opinion-getting-sidetracked-into-conversations that so many polls end up being, and that Czarcasm is actually hoping, at some point, to tot up the results, and doesn’t want to have to waste time winnowing out non-poll-answering posts.
At least, that’s the impression I got; last time I looked Czarcasm was perfectly well able, if not eager, to speak for himself …
The first part of the post was an explanation and a request to stay on topic(mild mod mode). The second half was a warning to quit screwing with the poll(mad mod mode).
According to the “speaking Southern” thread, this would be called ‘pitching a hissy fit.’
[shrill voice]I do not pitch hissy fits![/shrill voice]
leaves in a minute and a huff
Whoa. Now that was a honey of a flounce.
I seem to have missed the explanation part of it. “It is a poll,” maybe?
I deliberately avoided addressing the second half of the post. (Let Snakespirit start their own thread!) Looking at it again, I see it may have colored my impression of the half addressed to me. Quite frankly, it seemed . . . well, churlish. I see now that if you hadn’t said anything to Snakespirit I would have seen it as . . . still churlish. But I might not have gotten so worked up about it.
Now, how about finally telling us what’s up with that stupid link? Is there supposed to be a thread there? Was it deleted? I thought threads by trolls and sock-puppets were locked, so I’m surprised there’s one actually missing. Is this something I’m [pregnant pause] not supposed to talk about [ominous chord]? :eek:
If the first half sounded churlish, I apologize.
I perfer “getting his panties in a bunch”
Gee, Dangerosa, I spend 20 minutes at thesaurus.com trying to find the word that perfectly conveys the precise combination of carping and badgering (He may have groused, too, but I didn’t notice as I was buffaloed by his crabbiness) and you have to put me to shame so effortlessly. Anyway, I prefer “getting his knickers in a twist” if we are going to use that particular image.
And Czarcasm, apology accepted. Sorry if I messed up your poll. What is it for, anyway? That was what Guinestasia was trying to answer with her link in the first place.
Someone in the original thread that started this mess thought that a religion poll might come in handy, so I decided to start one just to help out.
BTW, I prefer the phrase “a wrinkle in his underroos”, myself.
So when do we get stats on that poll, anyway? I’m curious to see the results.
[casual]So, uhm, say Czar, which thread was that, anyway? Why doncha give us a link?[/casual]
If your want to know about the Thread that cannot speak its name, see this thread. Don’t say you got it from me, though, otherwise hor