[Bill Murray] Do I have to use the word “poopy”? [/Bill Murray]
Personally I enjoy that sort of humor.
One time in 1960 some folks made jokes about even sven’s work in Cameroon for 20 minutes
The first couple weren’t at the same time but hours apart.
Oh and poopy.
Oh man, I was all set to put my poopy-head hat on and froth myself up into an anti-mod frenzy, but then I noticed the thread was in GD. I’m sorry, that horse won’t run.
Huh. Does that really work?
Neither was Marley. Does that make his opinion in this thread “hardly relevant”?
And here I was getting ready to propose a sven clause…
Those jokes actually do come from a hateful place (you can read any of the threads pitting even sven for daring to mention her African experiences too often for context.)
And it probably only came to mod attention because people reported it. People like me.
Then he wasn’t the only one. It looked totally mean-spirited to me. (I see on further reading tom didn’t see it that way, but I still do)
Just as a counter-example - when people occasionally rag on Hal Briston for the sheep thing, I don’t think they’re being mean, that is just ordinary Doper humour. But Hal hasn’t been pitted for his…proclivities.
A knight in shining armour.
:rolleyes:
Why do you think these attacks look mean-spirited?
Context.
That’s assuming other posters in the thread in question were aware of that context, and not just playing the game of “lets see how many ways we can say the same thing”, like in the famous Marianas Trench thread I linked.
Personally, this is the first I’ve heard about even sven’s experiences in Africa.
You are aware that Marley is a moderator of the forum in question, are you not?
This is illuminating.
Can i ask if this is a general belief among the moderators, that those who were not participating in a particular thread have no relevant input to make about moderator decisions in that thread?
If a moderator decision is being discussed in ATMB, should the thread be restricted only to people who were participating in the original conversation? Are they the only ones who have a stake in the way the board is moderated, or do you think it might be possible for someone who wasn’t involved to read the thread in question and come to a reasonable conclusion about the issue?
At this point, this is so absurd I have to assume you’re no longer serious about your complaint. The thread potentially involved economics, politics, and culture, all of which are appropriately GD topics. It might have gone in GQ maybe, but there was nothing wrong with it in in GD. It certainly wasn’t MPSIMS material.
From the OP:
Doesn’t look to me like the OP was soliciting jokes.
Of course I didn’t say that. I was referring to Nzinga’s opinion that the remarks in that specific thread “weren’t intrusive.” Certainly her opinions are of less relevance than those who actually were participating in the thread. I was a participant as a poster, and found the continuing jokes frikkin’ annoying.
Why? We’re talking here about a general principle of intrusiveness, and we’re talking about a set of rules and moderating decisions that, theoretically at least, are supposed to be applied evenly across the board.
This is not an especially complicated issue. Assuming that the person in question has taken the time to actually read the thread, and to come to a conclusion, why is that person’s opinion not relevant if they haven’t actually participated in the thread? It seems to me that one can quite reasonably make an assessment about whether certain comments were “intrusive” without actually having been a participant.
There’s not really much ambiguity in your comment:
“You weren’t even participating in the thread. Your opinion on this is hardly relevant.”
I’m just interested in whether you would apply this principle more broadly, and if not, what it is about this particular case that makes it a special, participants-only ATMB discussion.