Sing it, sister. I almost ALWAYS have to bail on these threads, even if it seems like the story would be a good one. I recall one about a bad Vegas wedding which I regretted abandoning, but, alas, I couldn’t stay.
Timing is everything:
A new GQ question today, from the same animal, check out the first reply. Point illustrated perfectly.
On the same note it would be nice if people held off on the jokes in a GQ thread until a genuine answer is given and accepted. I enjoy the joking as much or maybe more than anyone, but give the thread time to be answered first.
Jim
I couldn’t agree more. This is something I wish the Mods would do something about. Note that once the Question has been soldily answered, then those pent up jokes aren;t so bad.
People who ask the same fuckin’ question in ATMB, despite it having been beaten to death umpteen times and written in letters of fire in the stickies. Look, if Poster X, who’s been here all of five minutes, is suddenly showing “Banned” under his name with no further explanation, there are two probable reasons. Another thread asking “Why?” is not suddenly going to be answered with “He was a counter-revolutionary element who has been sent to a re-education camp.”
Most of the things that annoy me have already been posted, but I don’t think anyone else mentioned junior modding. That’s a minor peeve of mine compared to the others, but it does bother me.
Could you please give me a piece of advise? In this thread, is what I posted in post #6 being a junior mod, constructive criticism with a chiding or something else?
It was meant to be constructive criticism with some chiding.
Thank you,
Jim
That doesn’t look like junior modding to me. Seems fine.
Of course, now that you have my approval, you can finally go on with your life, right? 
Well, I really was wondering and I thought you were a fair judge to ask for some constructive criticism. I do not want to act like a junior mod, so if I was over the line with someone who cannot stand junior modding, I was hoping for some pointers. I am happy to hear, I struck the correct balance.
What would you consider junior modding, I usually consider it to be where a user tries to hold people to their own rules and practices rather than the board rules. (I hope that made sense)
Thank you very much,
Jim
My biggest pet peeve is all the fussing about the Google ads. “Oh, my thread is about this, why are the Google ads about that? 
”
People: the Google ads do not think. They are not trying to insult you. They are not trying to support your point. They are not trying to derail your thread with non-sequiturs. So why do you let them?
Also: the Google ads are different for people in different locations. Usually when you whine about the Google ad saying something, the Google ad I (and many others) see does not say that thing. And, the Google ads will change as the thread continues, so your post is incredibly useless.
Finally: the “Humor-Writing Workshop” ad? It’s a default ad, it shows up when the engine can’t work out what else to advertise. So stop getting your panties in a bunch if the OP is a tragic tale of someone’s struggle against hair follicle cancer and the Google ad says “Learn how to write humour!” It is not suggesting that hair follicle cancer is funny, or that your struggling cancer victim’s tale would be funny if only you had talent. Google just doesn’t have any ads for hair follicle cancer cures!
Whew. I feel better now.
This is the opposite of my peeve - I too believe that the best debates happen in the Pit, and I don’t like my threads getting tossed into (heaven forbid) Great Debates, where I’m not likely to follow them, and if I do, I’m not likely to get any further enjoyment out of them. Someone upthread described Great Debates very accurately; it just ain’t much fun any more.
My peeve - the 15 inch post. That’s a whole lotta words to read, there.
(I think I’ve done just about every peeve mentioned here, and probably will again. I’m an unrepentent peever. Go me! 
)
When someone uses the word “vitriol,” as in “spewing vitriol” or “heaping vitriol” on someone. It seems to be used here about 10 thousand times more than anywhere else. I can’t say why, but the word just annoys me.
Well, I generally think that it’s the place of the mods to tell people about board rules, including when they are breaking them. If someone’s doing something they shouldn’t be, I’m going to report the post instead of mentioning anything to the poster him/herself, especially since it seems much of the time, people don’t follow the rules not because they are ignorant of the rules, but because they just don’t care.
JMHO, and I’m not trying to be a junior mod myself, but I think junior modding is when someone takes a stern, authoritative, or condescending tone when pointing out a rule violation, or chides someone after the mods have had their say, or both. I believe at least one person was banned for that. There’s also what you said, of course, which is when the mods and admins really get bent out of shape: if they saw the need for such a rule, there would already be one.
I haven’t read every post here (probably someone else’s pet peeve), so I apoligize if this is already mentioned.
In polls that begins “What is your favorite…” or “What is the best…”, someone will jump in with a link to or a list of the 100 greatest whatevers as decided by some group.
Look, the question was “what is your favorite…”, not some panel of voters favorites, and the freaking word favorite is singular, not plural. You get to choose one favorite, only one, and defend it as best you can.
Posting a list of 100 kills the fun of the thread, if not the thread itself, since you have mentioned all the <films, books, restaurants> that people likely had a good opinion on, but now won’t bother posting it because you’ve already mentioned them.
Oh my Lord, thank you, Caiata. I’m quoting this in its entirety so people see it twice.
Yesbut- once in a great while, the Google ads will show items of such whimsey compared to the thread, that I can’t help but chuckle.
“If you don’t like it, don’t read it.” is my biggest SDMB peeve. If someone posts a thread identical to the dozens like it that they’ve previously posted, I think it’s fair to call them on it. And if someone posts a thread in which their structure and style is so gothic, convoluted, or smugly self-satisfied that it overshadows whatever point they’re trying to make, I think it’s legit to comment on the prose as well as the idea.
My usual response to “if you don’t like it…” is that if I don’t comment, I have to endure the same crap in the future. While if I comment, there’s a tiny chance that the feedback will have some useful effect.
Gods, yes! The fun in those sorts of threads is finding out what pops into the minds(?) of Fellow Dopers, not what the morons at EW decided. Let the thread develop, then around page 3 link to the EW list with a comment about how we compare to them. Otherwise list-posting kills a thread right then.
Ditto this one as well. If all you are going to do is bitch, at least be original. The same old song and dance is tedious.
I hate it when someone posts a thread about Issue X, in which they put forth their opinion about Issue X, and a number of posters post in agreement or disagreement to the OP, and then someone pipes up with the nonoriginal “If the situation was reversed/we were talking about any other group of people, then everyone would be outraged/no one would care” argument.
I see this argument frequently on this board, but it’s a lot worse in other places. Here’s a demonstration of what I’m talking about.
OP: The guy I’m currently seeing is an inch shorter than me and it bothers me sometimes. Should I break up with him or should I stop being so superficial?
Poster 1: If he treats okay and you enjoy his company, I would stick with him. Height is not all that important.
Poster 2: I think you’re being a little superficial, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
Poster 3: Look into your heart and really ask yourself are you being fair to this guy. Would you like to be judged by your physical traits?
Poster 4 (the offender): If the OP was a man asking whether he should break up with his girlfriend because her breasts are small, all of yall would have burned him at the stake! WAH!
The reasons why this type of argumentation annoys the hell out of me.
-
The person who employs this rhetoric presumes to know how people would react to a hypothetical situation and then precedes to criticize them for exhibiting a double standard which is not in evidence but only exists in their mind. It is hard to defend yourself against such an accusation without it becoming a “Am not!” “Are too!” kind of squabble.
-
Usually these people never get around to stating their own opinions about the issue, so you never know whether they actually agree or disagree with the POV being discussed. It’s clear that they think it’s unfair that there is a perceived double standard, but which of these “standards” is right in their eyes? Should guys be allowed to break up with women for having small boobs just because a woman might choose to the same kind of thing with a guy? Or should women stay with short men, just because society frowns upon men breaking up with women for being small breasted?
-
Kind of related to point 2), but a little different. Just because some other group of people may “get away” with something that another group does not, that doesn’t tell you whether a POV is valid, so it doesn’t really advance the discussion. Men who dump women for small-breastedness are being superficial, too. And? What does pointing out this double standard really do to answer the OP?
-
How many people’s opinions on a subject completely changes just as soon as they imagine that the gender/race/religion of the OP is different? Do people who employ this argument really think pointing out this supposed double standard will really make people say “You know, you’re right. I was all for the OP dumping this guy because of his height, but now that you bring up men and small-breasted women, I now think the OP is a shallow bitch that deserves to burn in the fiery pits of hell.” Does this transformation really happen? I can’t imagine that people are so biased that they would advocate one thing for one group of people while attacking another group for doing the same thing.
-
“Reversing the roles” often doesn’t bring about comparable situations, despite superficial similarities. For example, the word “nigger” has different connotations and historical baggage than “honkey”, so replacing one for the other is rarely going to produce a hypothetical that is sufficiently analogous to the actual situation. Just because both are slurs doesn’t mean they are equally offensive. So most attempts to treat them like equals just doesn’t work. A double standard doesn’t make “nigger” worse than “honkey”. History does, ya idiot!
Links to YouTube should come with a warning just like we do for PDF’s. Many people can’t access streaming media content at work, and it throws up flags to the network administrators.