# Re: Closure of the Big T thread. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 21, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301 "2010-05-21T20:35:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301/141 "2010-05-27T13:40:07Z")
I am willing to apologize for this: I regret that my failure to understand what question **elbows** was trying to ask led me to respond in a way that she found less than helpful. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301/142 "2010-05-27T14:07:44Z")
Thank you very much **Twickster** , I appreciate that very sincerely, I do. But again, I was not offended, nor do I think you need apologize for, perhaps not responding helpfully. No one expects mods to hit a home run every time. I don’t quite understand why any one of the other mods, about the thread, couldn’t have taken a moment to improve on your reasons for closure, but there is, apparently, much I do not understand about protocols here in ATMB. However, I was, and remain, deeply offended by being characterized in a wholly unfounded fashion, in regards to my posting history over ten years. I can appreciate that, in the differing of opinions, you don’t see it that way. For me, however, it was very wounding and seemed to come out of nowhere, you are a mod after all. I am hoping that, by sharing this with you, you can understand how hurtful it was and that, just maybe, you will resist being so hurtful to other posters, in future. Also, as long as you’re here, and since you are the correct mod to ask, apparently, would you mind speaking to this; > [@](#): > > …who would have been hurt by moving it and/or reopening it again, for a few hours? Who would it have negatively impacted? I’m not seeing it. It takes, what?, a few seconds/keystrokes to do? How would it have harmed anything? I’m still not seeing what all the resistance was about… Because this is at the root of what leaves me scratching my head, convinced I must surely be missing something. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301/143 "2010-05-27T14:47:03Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Inferring that my issue was just, ‘yet another’, opportunity to get wound up over ‘mod decisions’, was, and remains, grossly unfair, in my opinion. A quick review of my, ten year, history of posting here, reveals as much. How such an accusation can be seen as anything but an insult is somewhat beyond me, but, hey, everybody is different. That a mod casting such aspersions isn’t required to provide a cite, when requested, on a board, so very fond of the word ‘cite’ is, indeed mystifying. But apparently, that’s just how it is. > > … > > However, I was, and remain, deeply offended by being characterized in a wholly unfounded fashion, in regards to my posting history over ten years. I can appreciate that, in the differing of opinions, you don’t see it that way. For me, however, it was very wounding and seemed to come out of nowhere, you are a mod after all. I am hoping that, by sharing this with you, you can understand how hurtful it was and that, just maybe, you will resist being so hurtful to other posters, in future. > > … **elbows** ’s behaviour has, in my opinion been exemplary: calm and conciliatory. **twickster** ’s has not. Her half dozen or so repsones and apologies have been curt and grudging. Please note, twickster, that elbows has said that she is ‘_deeply offended by being characterized in a wholly unfounded fashion_’ and that, because you are a mod, she is ‘_wounded and hurt_’. I hope you can understand this, and feel that it would be appropriate to address this in a sympathetic manner. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301/144 "2010-05-27T22:13:09Z")
\*\*\*\*Okay, I’ve just reread the entire thread, because I am having trouble figuring out just what it is that you, **elbows** , are wishing to accomplish here. > [@](#): > > Inferring that my issue was just, ‘yet another’, opportunity to get wound up over ‘mod decisions’, was, and remains, grossly unfair, in my opinion. A quick review of my, ten year, history of posting here, reveals as much. How such an accusation can be seen as anything but an insult is somewhat beyond me, but, hey, everybody is different. That a mod casting such aspersions isn’t required to provide a cite, when requested, on a board, so very fond of the word ‘cite’ is, indeed mystifying. But apparently, that’s just how it is. Again, I can’t say what was on **Twickster** ’s mind by that comment, but my impression is that it was not a blanket comment that “you are known for being a whiner and complainer”, rather it was a summary of how she took your comments _in this thread_. So it is unfair to claim she is making a claim about your 10 year posting history when really she was talking about your _7 post_ history in this thread up to that point. And responding with cites would be pretty silly since they are all in this thread already. Of course it would be better if **Twickster** explained for herself. > [@](#): > > I still don’t understand, when I was so clearly pressing the other mods for answers, how none of them could be bothered to respond, “sorry, we can’t speak to that”. Apparently I was supposed to be born with that knowledge. 😕 They certainly could have posted such, and perhaps that would have helped a little. Okay, so now we’re past that point. What do you think you accomplishing by continuing to bring it up? > [@](#): > > I also don’t understand why **Twickster** didn’t just answer my inquiry with what, I now gather, is the truth about this thread closure. The discussion had now veered into areas wherein, it was, really, no longer about the message board, and would be better suited elsewhere. Instead I got the bullshit, ‘4 pages long, nothing new being said’, comeback. Wait, so you are asserting that **Twickster** didn’t post truthfully about her motivations for closing this thread? Or just that she didn’t state all the motivations she had? Because from what I gather, she posted what _her_ motivations were: **BigT** as the OP requested the thread be closed, and since the thread had stopped being an exchange of information and had stagnated as a round of “No, you”, there was no point in not closing it. Leaving it open for others to respond would have just been more “No, you”. “4 pages long, nothing new being said” is exactly that - it was four pages of posters: “ **BigT** , stop getting upset.” **BigT** : “You don’t understand.” “4 pages of nothing new being said and a request from the OP to close the thread - yep, I’ll close the thread.” Why is that confusing? > [@](#): > > I see mods move threads all the freaking time. Why not move it, agreeing to close it, as per the OP’s request, after some time period, that would have permitted any poster cited in BigT’s last post, an opportunity to respond. Move it where and why? Especially when the OP asked for closure. “Okay, I’m moving this thread from ATMB to The BBQ Pit so other posters can chew out **BigT** for being a whiney brat, and then I’ll close this thread in 6 hours per the OP’s request.” That makes sense? Substitute whatever scenario works to get it to whatever other forum you propose, how does it make sense? How does that not come off as picking on **BigT**? > [@](#): > > And no one ever responded on who would have been hurt by opening it again for a few hours? Who would it have negatively impacted? I’m not seeing it. It takes, what?, a few seconds/keystrokes to do? How would it have harmed anything? I’m still not seeing what all the resistance was about, other than a mod not wanting their authority questioned. But, again, it seems, that’s just how it is. The problem was not who would be hurt by opening the thread again - as evidenced by the fact that **Gfactor** did just that. But you didn’t bring up reopening the thread until post 91. Up until that point, you weren’t asking for the thread to be reopened, you weren’t complaining that the thread shouldn’t have been closed, you were “asking for clarification of why it was possible, why it didn’t violate board policy”. So which is it? Did you want clarification of the policy? Did you want an explanation from **Twickster** about why she closed the thread when she did? Or did you want the thread reopened so some of the other posters could respond? Because that’s three different things. **Twickster** interpreted your OP to be item 2, so that’s how she responded. You then stated your intent was item 1. You only bring up item 3 in post 91. It’s not very fair of you to blame the mods for not reading your mind. So the “resistance” was not “No, we’re not going to reopen this thread even though you asked for it,” because you never asked - the “resistance” was merely “You asked why it was closed, here’s why. You asked about policy on closing threads, there is no official policy that covers this, but **Gfactor** has some guidelines about how _he_ closes threads posted.” The “resistance” was merely a lack of communication about what you wanted. And without meaning to offend, I think part of the problem is an issue on your part for being able to understand what is written. Example, regarding board policy on thread closure. **Gfactor** clearly stated that there was no official policy regarding closing threads at the request of the OP. He then posted a list of guidelines _he_ uses, and clearly stated at that time once again that they are not official rules, only the considerations _he_ makes when closing threads in his forum. Your reaction: > [@](#): > > Then she says there is no ‘protocol’ for thread closure. And a few posts later, posts exactly that, she herself composed and posted over a year ago. But **Gfactor** clearly stated > [@](#): > > Here’s my current thinking on thread closures, generally. **These are not rules at all** , they are just an explanation of **how I think about** requests to close or reopen a thread. Bolding added for emphasis. So the fact that **Twickster** may not have followed the guidelines that **Gfactor** posted is irrelevant, because there was no requirement that she do so. Your original OP, that you wonder why **Twickster** was allowed to close the thread then and what is the clarification of the policy, is clearly and unambiguosly answered by the statement that _there is no policy_. **Twickster** violated no board policy or moderator rules by closing the thread at the request of the OP even though it was almost directly after the OP gave a lengthy response to several people. At best you can say it gave a bad impression about the situation in the thread and about **BigT** ’s behavior, but you keep saying you don’t blame **BigT** for requesting closure, you blame **Twickster** for closing the thread in what you think is a policy violation. Well, it is not. Other people have agreed the situation gave a bad implication about **BigT** ’s behavior (accurate or not) and that perhaps it would have eliminated that appearance by having a delayed closure so the others had a chance to respond, but there was no policy violation by **Twickster** closing when she did, only you misunderstanding the difference between how one moderator thinks about the issue of closing at the OP’s request vs an actual stated board policy and rule. Look, I’m not trying to beat you up here, I just am having trouble understanding why you keep bringing this up, why you don’t seem to understand the answer yet. **kayT** said: > [@](#): > > The panties remark was characterized by Ed as “exasperated but nonetheless mild remark that you are now interpreting as an unfounded accusation and an insult.” The potty training remark was characterized by Czarcasm as “horribly condescending and/or insulting.” This is not a double standard??? Those statements are out of context and contrasting them as you are doing does not appear fair to the original point of their use. **leander** ’s original remark was in response to the feeling that **Twickster** ’s behavior was disrespectful. **Czarcasm** posted a reply to **leander** trying to point out the irony of criticizing a lack of respect by making a disrespectful post. **leander** apparently didn’t get **Czarcasm** ’s point, so **Czarcasm** was attempting to further explain with: > [@](#): > > Thus my post about people wanting reverential treatment from others without wanting to bother to give such treatment themselves. And that was done to demonstrate that **kayT** ’s claim that posters were being held to a higher standard than moderators. That is when **Czarcasm** posted > [@](#): > > In what way is comparing what **twickster** and I do to a 3 year old being potty-trained not horribly condescending and/or insulting? Use of the superlative “horribly” is subjective, the essence of **Czarcasm** ’s statement is that **leander** was being intentionally disrespectful to both **Twickster** and **Czarcasm** with the repeated comparison. But that statement does not try to compare a measure of which is more disrespectful, snark by **Twickster** or snark by **leander**. Meanwhile, when Ed characterized **Twickster** ’s comment as “exasperated but nonetheless mild”, he was not comparing that to the status of **leander** ’s remarks. He might very well rate **leander** ’s remarks as “disrespectful but mild” as well. Notice that nobody got a warning or even a Moderator Note for those comments. **elbows** said: > [@](#): > > Well, for one thing, I never said your joking lowered the level of respect more than what Leander posted. But it certainly doesn’t, ‘raise the level of respect’, which is what your chastising Leander for, is it not? The only reason **leander** was being chastised for not “raising the level of respect” was because **leander** was complaining about the level of respect. **Czarcasm** was pointing out the futility of demanding respect while being disrespectful. Otherwise, I doubt he would have brought it up at all and let **leander** make his/her snarky comments. And I will acknowledge that that is a 2-way street, and that there is certainly something valid to the comment that if the moderators expect posters to post their complaints respectfully, they should refrain from being disrespectful in their responses. And I will go further and state that in my opinion the onus is on the board authorities to lead with the tone and behavior they expect. And after all this posting I now feel like I’m picking a fight with **elbows**. **elbows** , it is not my intent to be confrontational or offensive. I am trying to post an alternate perspective to your issues and clarify to the best of my ability what I see is going on, in hopes that helps resolve some of your questions. I hope you can take my comments constructively, as they are intended. ---
**Author:** ![Buckeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9f8e36/32.png) [@Buckeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buckeye)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301/145 "2010-05-28T00:29:19Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > I am willing to apologize for this: > > I regret that my failure to understand what question **elbows** was trying to ask led me to respond in a way that she found less than helpful. Why not just apologize for your offensive statement. Unless you have some hidden cites somewhere, you are wrong about **elbows** \*\*\*\* being a bitchy poster concerning the mods. The more you dance around it, the worse it makes you look. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301/146 "2010-05-28T01:33:23Z")
> [@](#): > > **Irishman** : …And that’s likely why **Twickster** felt a little snark was in order when responding to you. Your tone comes off as more about chewing out mods rather than clarifying anything or actually reopening the thread so others can respond. How many times did she have to repeat the issues that she was asking for clarification about? There was no doubt in my mind that she was serious about getting clarification. I think that she probably began by thinking about the issue of thread closings in the long term and not just this one closing. I could be mistaken. > [@](#): > > I don’t agree snark was called for. I don’t agree with snark during actual moderator function (either mod actions/comments or responding to questions). But I can see why Twickster felt a bit attacked. If **Twickster** made snarky comments everytime someone criticized or questioned an action of hers in ATMB, she would feel “attacked” and be snarky a considerable amount of the time. Oh… > [@](#): > > I’m not sure how strong of an accusation it was intended to be. Nevertheless, you interpreted it to be an accusation that you are a regular complainer or such, and so Twickster should have addressed your concern with either a real apology, or a clarification of her own intent. Or both. Again, I could be wrong, but I don’t think that **elbows** even asked for an apology. She just asked for a **cite**. If **Twickster** had responded with a cite, it would have been clear whether she was talking about **elbows** long term history or just her history in this thread. Either way, she passed up a chance to explain what she meant by her accusation – if it had any real meaning at all. My main advice to **Twickster** would be to give a little more serious thought to answering clarification questions. She knows that threads aren’t closed because they are “four pages long.” And although there was a common comment in many of the threads, there was something in each thread that made it a little different too. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301/147 "2010-05-28T03:23:33Z")
I’m sorry **Irishman** , but I find, I don’t have it in me, to go another round, sorry. I truly feel that I addressed, more than once, actually, every point you raised. I’m tired of repeating it, honestly. [QUOTE=Irishman] just what it is that you, elbows, are wishing to accomplish here. [/QUOTE] I don’t know, I suppose I thought that the appropriate mod, once it was pointed out, would recognize that the posters cited, by **BigT** , might, indeed, want to respond. That they’d make a few keystrokes and move/reopen the thread. I honestly thought this thread would go 5 posts, tops. It’s not hard, it hurts no one, costs nothing and seems like common sense to me. The last thing I expected was what ensued. My incredulity with each, more surprising, turn kept me going on. I’ve read so many threads, over the years of people harshly judging the mods to be heavy handed, combative, rude and so forth.:mad: I think I was I little blinded, by my own love of this board, to acknowledge that some of that was true. It went over 100 posts, I believe, because, even when it was right there, in front of my own eyes, I didn’t want to see it.:smack: You are, of course, more than entitled to your opinion. As you can see, from this thread, there is no shortage of views. You have always impressed me as a very intelligent fellow. So this; [QUOTE=Irishman] And after all this posting I now feel like I’m picking a fight with elbows. [/QUOTE] is, I think, telling. Perhaps there is a good reason you feel that way? [QUOTE=Irishman] elbows, it is not my intent to be confrontational or offensive. [/QUOTE] I’m not entirely sure that just saying this makes it so. But I can easily assume you didn’t mean to be, even if it feels like you were. I’m thinking I should make this my signature, so I never forget it; “There is nothing to win, in challenging the mods on any decision, and your reputation to lose, don’t !” ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301/148 "2010-05-28T17:11:14Z")
**elbows** , I don’t want to drag this out any further, either. I’m sorry you didn’t get satisfactory answers. Know that I don’t have any issues with you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-closure-of-the-big-t-thread/540301.md?page=7)