Question about thread closing ("Have we all been taken for a ride?")

@Hari_Seldon recently closed this thread (linked below) and gave @ishamael69 a warning for “either trolling or an example of abject stupidity.”

My question for Hari: did you read the rest of the thread, or did you just read the OP and immediately decide to close it?

Because the thread went on for quite a while and generated some IMHO good discussion, and as far as I can tell, ishamael69, while maybe a bit obtuse, seemed to be attempting to engage people in good faith. So, while he maybe held some mistaken ideas (which other posters were helpfully refuting), it didn’t look to me like trolling or “abject stupidity” (though I could, of course, be wrong).

I thought the thread had a decent conversation going, didn’t agree with closing.

Agree with the above posters. Seemed like a question/topic which generated good discussion.

I seldom offer commentary on moderation, but in this case, I must agree with @BobLibDem. If the point of this message board is to fight ignorance, then we must allow ignorant people to ask questions and work their way through the learning process.

I thought @Kimstu’s summation of what has happened with the GOP over time was excellent and particularly instructive for the OP. It explains why their tactics are invariably obstructionist – which always slows down and often prevents quick action in our Congress.

It’s hard to accept that a great many in our society are so ill informed about how government works (or in recent times, more accurately doesn’t work), but they are. When someone is genuinely attempting to learn more about the process, I hope SDMB is still holding aloft the beacon of fighting ignorance.


When ignorance is more interested in defending itself (and quite possibly stirring up the fight for the sake of the fight) than debating in good faith and learning, you have to draw the line.

That’s not what I saw, but reasonable minds can differ, as we all know.

I flagged the closing post about an hour ago. If I called an OP “an example of abject stupidity", I’d be given a warning without any thought to it. It would appear Hari didn’t put any thought into his post, either.

I agree with the closing, since the OP essentially asked it to be closed:

I think I will bow out now and go back to lurking instead of risking causing further upset with my views. I appreciate everyone who took the time to educate me on what is being done, and the reason it is taking so long. I still find it amazing that more cannot be done, but I do understand that apparently it cannot.

I disagree with the warning, though, and I thought the mod note was over the top.

Calling the OP “an example of abject stupidity" is way over the line for personal insults, especially from a moderator. Maybe we need someone to moderate the moderators. Hari_Seldon should apologize and reopen the thread as it had a pretty good conversation going.

It’s a longstanding rule that posters don’t decide if their thread stays open, no reason to start now.

It’s also pretty common that when a poster asked for a thread to be closed, it gets closed. I’ve done it myself and seen it done many times.

Personally I think Hari Seldon should step down from being a moderator or be removed by his peers. This type of thing is a constant issue with him. (Not that the rest of the staff are great either WRT this, but he is by far the worst, ISTM.)

Sure, if the thread is derailed or a shouting match or similar. This was a perfect example of a thread working just like it should. OP said one thing, various other posters explained why he was wrong, plus a lot of other info added about impeachment. No reason to close it at all.

I agree. It is unfair that Hari_Seldon is consistently applying the rules of the board to conservative posters when we have all agreed that they are a protected species. Conservatives have been allowed to get away with murder on the Dope for so long applying the rules to them in a reasonable matter is simply not right.

Same here, although I think Hari was right to close the thread when the OP renounced it.

I agree with the warning from raventhief, that was correct, and I have apologized for that.

This is why I do not participate on this site more than reading it: I am not good at debating. However, I have been posting here since 2005 (and reading before that) and have never before been accused of being a troll. I do not see how my post was trolling. If I am abjectly stupid, fine, I accept that, and I would like someone to direct me to the rule against abject stupidity.

For example, in 2017, I asked on this board the abjectly stupid question of why heathcare should be free when other necessities are not. I was educated, and now feel that not only should healthcare be provided to everyone, other necessities should also be available to everyone here. This is why abjectly stupid questions should be allowed.

On my current post: If someone sent a mob to my office to kill me, and I had the power to stop them permanently and/or punish them appropriately, I would be moving as fast as I could to do so. I found it strange that congress (both houses) and the vice president were not and asked if I had perceived something wrong. According to Velocity: yes, I had perceived something wrong as the situation was not as dire as I believed. According to many others, parts of congress are doing as much as they can do as fast as they can. Both of these points speak to my initial post, which I fail to see how it is regarded as a troll. Also, both of these points are under contention in that very thread and in the news. It seems like a proper debate to me, but I am rather biased.

I post so rarely that this warning is not likely to affect me, but I do feel it is unfair. If my actions were so outrageous in the initial post, why did raventhief not issue the warning for trolling or abject stupidity when the first warning was issued?