I wasn’t sure whether this should go in the Pit or ATMB (erring on the side of caution, as the ATMB mandates, I chose the Pit), but why would a thread be altered (by having large sections of posted text removed) and then closed if it was in the wrong forum, instead of simply moving it the correct forum?
I refer to this, a potentially very interesting topic that struck me as borderline GQ/GD, but apparantly struck manhattan as closer to GD. If that was the case, why not simply move it to GD and let it continue? There was nothing in the deleted text (that I can recall) that consituted hate speech, described illegal or pornographic activity, or violated a copyright.
If possible, I’d like a clarification of this before I open a GD thread on Israel’s nuclear options.
Presumably, it would take longer to actually read through each post and delete the offending text rather than move the whole thread to GD…but I’m not an SDMB moderator, so I can only assume manhattan felt this was easier?
Anyway, I would have been interested in reading the information that was deleted, it seemed like an interesting topic. Were the deleted sections in response to MEBuckner’s post?
In any case, I believe there was a chapter on this subject in the book “Gideon’s Spies”…its been awhile since I read that though, so I can’t summarize it.
I did it solely to demonstrate that sidetracking a GQ into GD territory is not a productive endeavor. There was nothing in the deleted text which would not be acceptable in GD. Also, no one was warned and no one is in danger of being banned.
I’m just hoping that if people lose even a fraction of the productive effort producing their posts that I do moving and admonishing, they might actually learn to read the forum descriptions and respect the divisions we have created here. I’m tired of substantially every thread containing the words “Israel,” “Iraq,” “Bush,” “Clinton,” etc. being sidtracked by someone with an agenda.
To avoid misunderstandings, this’ll be my last post of the evening. So if I appear not to be coming back, I’m not ignoring anyone – I’m sleeping! I’ll catch up with this thread tomorrow afternoon or so.
Yeah, it’s all Clinton’s fault, and now Savior Bush is gonna set things right! Protect Israel, nuke Iraq! Anthrax sniper 9/11 assassinate bomb lubricant!
Oops… looks like I’m setting off a few alarms over at FBI HQ… sorry…
For the record, Manhattan, I don’t really think that my post was GD material - I was smply stating a fact considered common knowlege in my part of the world.
It’s your call, of course. I realy feel no urge to get into an argument about a throwaway line that had very little to do with the OP.
I’d argue that the thread wasn’t really sidetracked at all, since the original post contained a two-part question, the second part now having been deleted:
Part 1: Does Israel have deployable nuclear weapons and if so, how did they get them?
This question is GQ material since it invites factual (though occasionally speculative) responses.
Part 2 (deleted): Do these weapons pose the greatest threat to the surrounding nations?
This clearly invites GD responses on Middle-East politics.
I take issue with the idea of “sidetracking”. The OP’s two-pronged question invited GQ- and GD-type responses, so by definition it was not sidetracked (or hijacked) when GD opinions were posted, and the people posting these opinions did not “waste their time”, as was rather testily stated. There’s a touch of undue condescension in manhattan’s closure in that thread and reponse in this thread, as though a lesson had to be taught to unruly children.
The recent white-nationalist debacle proved the need for the moderators to occasionally impose order, but if this was a worthwhile thread (I feel it was) whose original premise was not acceptable for GQ, precedent shows it should simply have been closed (with a statement of GQ policy) or moved to another, more appropriate board. The deletion of posted content was overkill, especially since this content was not in violation of any board rule concerning hate speech, illegal activity, pornography or copyright.
Well, now that I’ve gone on record with my objection and received a response, this thread has served its purpose and may as well be closed.
Wait… don’t close it. I just posted on the “deleted” thread. Where are the deleted threads stored? If you click on the link in the OP, my response is there. Weird.
the point you may be missing is that if a question has two prongs, one a GD, one a GQ, GQ forum is not the place to put it.
moving a thread (I seem to recall) takes more out of the hamsters than simply closing it.
and, manny’s point is on target - if folks get used to 'well, I’ll put this in GQ since there’s some part that’s factual, and the mods will move it to GD later, that means that a poster is essentially rewarded for placing a thread in a wrong forum. If they have to expend the effort to repost the GD part into the correct forum, perhaps next time, they’ll remember and place it in the correct place the first time.
FTR: It is not uncommon for a GD OP to have as a base, “GQ first, is this true? and if so, here’s the GD”.
jacksen9, the thread was never deleted; rather, non-GQ portions of it were removed. In other words, if a poster posted something along the lines of:
Then manhattan would have deleted all the argumentative, GD-type red bits, but left the factual, blue, GQ stuff.
Biggirl: Facts are always welcome in Great Debates!
wring: Yeah; closing threads is usually pretty quick and painless. Moving them apparently gives the hamsters fits. Actually, editing can be kind of a pain too, but manhattan was trying to make a point.
Starbury: I don’t recall any direct responses to my post in any of the deleted sections. :smugly: My post didn’t need to be edited!
Refresh my memory – was yours the one which stated that such and such was “official Israeli policy?”
If so, you are correct – it was a GQ (albeit a debatable one – hah!). But since it replied to a GD which I removed and used a pronoun as the sentence subject, it wouild have made no sense standing alone. In retrospect, I probably should have commented to that effect.
To reiterate: I’m really not looking to punish anyone or knock heads or whatever – at least not anyone specifically. It’s just that recently people have felt less constrained about sidetracking GQ threads. After warning and warning and warning, I simply decided that a shot across the bow was called for.
Board historians will note that we created GD precisely to get that stutf out of GQ and away from the central mission of the board. That the outstanding moderation and the wonderful members who hang around in that forum has transformed it into a central mission in its own right is a bonus for everyone. But it doesn’t mean that GD stuff should leak back to GQ.
I don’t know that there’s any reason to cloes it – we can disagree without bashing each other, and we might both learn something.
I did what I did to send a message. Accordingly, yeah, it looks harsh and testy. Yes, the question had GQ and GD components. I expect GQers not to bite on the GD. Is that a very high standard? You betcha! But not too high. I want people to be able to come to GQ and ask questions (or follow along with others’ questions or answer questions) without any fear whatsoever that they will be drawn into a political debate. Why? It’s my belief that such a freedom allows people to learn the most (and teach the most).
I’m not sorry that people felt stung by what I did – that was my intent. But I do feel bad that you, particularly got stung, just as I would feel bad about most people. If I could think of a way to deliver a uniform sting, I’d have done so.
Oh, yeah. That was another thing I wanted to clear up. The thread remains open, happily awaiting any further GQ responses to the GQ portion of the OP. Additionally, the OP or anyone else is free to open a GD thread asking the GD portion.
Candidly, I agree with the OP here that the other stuff was pretty interesting – I’d certainly follow a GD thread on the subject.
Oh, yeah. That was another thing I wanted to clear up. The thread remains open, happily awaiting any further GQ responses to the GQ portion of the OP. Additionally, the OP or anyone else is free to open a GD thread asking the GD portion.
Candidly, I agree with the OP here that the other stuff was pretty interesting – I’d certainly follow a GD thread on the subject.
You know, over on the SF board, they consider the SDMB to be a mouthpiece for Jews, or beholden to Jewish interests or something like that. I can just see one of them stumbling onto that thread with the deleted parts and going “Hah! See, I told you, the mods are editing posts about Israel to protect their leftist Jewish masters. Jewish control of the media has spread to the internet!!” Somehow the idea of one of those guys misinterpreting what happened in that thread and finding validation for their Jewish media conspiracy is really amusing to me.
Of course, that speaks to the real point about editing posts. It’s the nature of people to wonder what has been deleted and why, they get even more curious about topics they normally would have ignored when something has been hidden from view.
