Mods: Why do Reeder's Threads Remain in GD?

[Bricker]

The latest offering may be found here, and consists, in total, of:

http://www.georgewbush.com/

The lies are spreading.

Be afraid…be very afraid.

I will once again register a continuing, albeit respectful, disagreement with the conclusion reached by Gaudere above. The linked OP is garbage as far as GD standards.

• Rick

[Palo_Verde]

I have to agree. When asked to clarify in the above post what exactly the debate was, he just said, “politics.”

WTF???

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Gaudere *
**…However, Reeder does always advance a position to debate (and generally about half a dozen lines of commentary, not a single line, in my review)… **

Proof positive that Gaudere did not actually review Reeder’s posts.

[Palo_Verde]

Woo Hoo! This above mentioned Reeder thread was closed by a mod!

[Scylla]

Bricker:

Upon reviewing my previous post, and in light of ongoing develops, there is the possibility that my earlier criticism was mistaken.

Just the possibility.

[Bricker]

I would like to thank the administration, in the person of David B, for closing the thread I mentioned most recently above. I think the closing, as well as the commentary that accompanied it, will be valuable in terms of future guidance.

I can’t speak for any reader (no pun intended) other than myself, but I am quite pleased, and quite grateful.

• Rick

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Proof positive that Gaudere did not actually review Reeder’s posts. **

Not the most recent ones, anyway… give the man a chance.

[Avalonian]

Uh… give the woman a chance. (Sorry Gaudere)

[Gaudere]

1. Sometimes I encounter an issue on which I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other - I can see both sides, and am primarily interested in seeing the opinions of others on the issue. In such a case, I might post the two sides as I see them in the OP and then follow the thread as others post to it, without adding anything further myself.

2. I generally don’t like me-too posts, and usually post when I see a viewpoint that I hold being inadequately represented (IMHO). If I post an OP and in the subsequent debate others are doing a fine job of holding up “my” side of the argument, I don’t see any more need to post than I would in another thread.

What I am trying to avoid is people who make controvertial OPs and then flee, or who refuse to respond to posts directly addressed to them, or who put almost no work into their thread/OP, e.g.: [posts article] “I think this is bad.” [Goes away and never returns, thread dies]

[Gaudere]

Brutus: if you have a link to a thread in the past month where Reeder does not advance a position that might be debatable, please supply it; and no, the latest does not count since it was locked and it was posted after I had reviewed the threads. If I have missed one please let me know.

Note that we do sometimes allow OPs to stay in GD if we think they may develop into debates, or are too “hot” for other forums, for example, the Gay Guy threads, nearly any religious thread, etc.

[Bricker]

Gaudere:

In my post above of 08-18-2003 02:16 PM, I supply links to several Reeder threads that, in my view, were devoid of debate content.

• Rick

[Gaudere]

In my post above of 08-18-2003 02:16 PM, I supply links to several Reeder threads that, in my view, were devoid of debate content.

Thread one: Yeah, it’s basically just saying “look at this political cartoon/movie, what do you think?” But we’ve had those before, and they weren’t locked. Example: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=191571
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=164068 (this probably would have been had it continued)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=153787

In threads two and three you yourself do find a debateable proposition:

I imagine that the debate topic is, “The Patriot Act has gone too far,” but it’s certainly an assertion shy of specifics.

This is marginally better, in that it actually suggests a proposition - but it’s a proposition that assumes facts not shown as predicate to the argument - such as it is.

Perhaps my objection to this last is simply that it is poor debate, rather than no debate at all. And, in fairness, poor debate is not prohibited in GD.

I mean, I’m not at all impressed with the work Reeder put into his OPs, but we have allowed equally scanty OPs from other posters to stay open before. If I start locking threads that would be acceptable when made by others just because they are Reeder threads, I’m holding him to a higher standard than other posters. You said yourself that december posted much like Reeder before:

I noticed [december’s] “early work” was remarkably similar in approach to Reeder’s

and if we didn’t lock december’s threads then, how can we fairly start locking Reeder’s threads now?

That said, if Reeder continues posting truly contentless OPs they will be locked, or if he posts so many low content threads that I become irritated I will limit his posting.

[Reeder]

Thank you for your support. I will try to make my posts more debate like. It’s just there is so much stuff to post about the evils of the Bush admin and so little time.

But I will word my posts better.

Thanks

Randy

Bushistas…your toes hurting?

[andros]

So post them in the Pit. How difficult is that?

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Gaudere *
You said yourself that december posted much like Reeder before:

and if we didn’t lock december’s threads then, how can we fairly start locking Reeder’s threads now?

While I agree that it may open a chorus of complaints about favoring one political viewpoint over another, I believe it’s shortsighted to permit ill-formed GD posts merely because, in the past, you have also permitted ill-formed GD posts. A better approach, in my humble view, would be to acknowledge that it was a mistake not to lock december’s early non-debates, and you don’t intend to continue making that mistake henceforth.

That said, if Reeder continues posting truly contentless OPs they will be locked, or if he posts so many low content threads that I become irritated I will limit his posting.

I am certainly glad to hear it.

Scylla (despite his almost-concession above) is right: this is not a Reeder problem. It’s a forum problem, and Reeder just happens to be the malefactor of the moment. GD and GQ should be the crown jewels of the Straight Dope Message Board. This is why it irks me no end when idiots post inaccurate information in GQ, and when GD is polluted by posts that do nothing to establish a debatable proposition.

I certainly appreciate the attention you’ve given the issue; it’s more than anyone could ask.

• Rick

[andros]

Not that it’s worth much, Rick, but I absolutely appreciate what you’ve been saying here.

[Gaudere]

Bricker: Well, I’d like GD to be one of the shining lights on the board, too, but there is a limit to what I feel I should do as an administrator to accomplish this. I mean, a cop likely wants to people in his city to be kind and charitable and involved in the community, but he won’t arrest you if you aren’t. Similarly, I would like it if GD consisted primarily of brillant, respectful debate, but if someone gets a little snotty or is a sloppy citer or is, frankly, not very bright, I don’t feel it’s my job to step in unless it gets to the genuine “jerky” level; this sort of thing should be dealt with with the more subtle pressure of community standards. Otherwise I have to exert draconion control over people’s mode of expression, and while I could mold GD into what I want it to be, I honestly don’t feel ignorance would be fought as effectively under such restraint. People would be more polite and cite better and have lengthier OPs, but we’d miss the full exposure to many point of views, and frankly a bit of snark is what keeps a lot of people involved. Reeder’s OPs are a bit scant on substance, but an OP is only part of what makes a good debate; we’ve had pages of debate from OPs as brief as his before. He does appear to have a commitment to his threads, and so I don’t feel he’s just clogging up the boards with a bunch of threads that he won’t put the work into to make a good debate. He is a bit on the frequent side for his threads, and since he has posted here:

Reeder, please work harder to form a full debate topic in your OP, not just something like “I think Bush’s actions are bad in this instance”. Say why it is bad, what consequences you expect, what you think he should do, etc. Look at the other threads and see how people do it. If all you want to say is “Bush sucks”, it would probably be better off in the Pit.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Bush sucks.

[cheddarsnax]

I think Bush’s actions are bad in this instance.