samclem, could you please explain some moderating choices?

Thread here.

Example 1:

Example 2:

One might ask exactly the same questions about the posts from Ale or Airman Doors or just about everyone else in that thread except yabob.

Personally, i thought that most of the posts in that thread were perfectly decent posts, but some of them did little more than express an opinion about the selflessness (or otherwise) of Dwyer’s suicide, and the fact that he felt himself to be innocent. In no way did they answer the OP’s question.

The question in the OP was whether Dwyer was presumed to be guilty. The only person in this thread who really gave a direct answer to that was yabob. If you wanted no digression, you could have closed the thread there. And if you’re going to allow digression, why pick out some people for criticism and let others speculate or opine to their heart’s content?

While i understand that we don’t want GQ threads devolving into a parade of one-liners, an occasional joke can lighten the atmosphere without getting things off-track or ruining the thread. I guess i just don’t understand why the funny stuff was any less GQ-like than the opinions about whether Dwyer was selfless or stupid.

What does this have to do with moderating? I didn’t see him put on a hat.

Well, if you think that asking two posters in a row what their contributions have to do with GQ isn’t moderating, then i guess i’ll just have to excuse your obtuseness.

I just did a search on all of samclem’s posts, and reviewed the last 125.

He doesn’t put on a mod hat, as near as I can make out. In fact, I never even saw him issue an unambiguous official warning. He’s kind of laid-back, but diligent about housekeeping duties.

I guess it’s fair to say he was moderating, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t seem to me that he wields a particularly menacing mod-stick. You might want to let it go, mhendo. I don’t think it looks like anybody’s going to wake up with jackboot marks all over them.

Yah, it’s sort of a no win situation. Since he didn’t “put a hat on”, he can fall back and say there was no moderating, just suggestions to keep the thread in line. But if it wasn’t a moderator who said the same thing they would be accused of junior modding.

I just think he came off a bit grumpy.

I thought the joke was a groaner, and the Filter reference was an interesting one. Just MHO though.

Nothing wrong with samclem. If he blew his top, it would be different.

I wonder was was passing through his mind when he wrote that.

Well, he is old.

::digs in at plate::
::tightens batting gloves::
::stares down pitcher::
::watches release::
::notes high arc on softball::
::lifts lead leg::
::steps into pitch::
::turns hips::
::brings wrists over::

::watches with satisfaction as softball clears right-field porch::
::raises arms::
::begins slow home run trot::


I have noticed joke lines in GQ quite often. I reported one once but nothing was done so I assumed they were allowed or perhaps the mod thought it was funny so they let it ride.

Maybe because the jokes were in bad taste. Speaking ill of the dead and all that.

I guess it depends how one may react to a joke. I can only assume that samclem didn’t find it funny so used his mod status to direct the responses away from jokes.

I’m not really saying “how dare you, why do you hate fun?!” But I’m just curious about why?

I don’t think I’ve ever reported anything even remotely attempting humor. I rather enjoy the jokes we find on the board in every forum, and I would rather suffer some bad humor than to stifle the sometimes silly atmosphere. I could understand if the jokes are hijacking a thread, but I don’t think that was the case in this example.

He didn’t say he was modding,and his questions were appropriate,though a bit unexpected.Sometimes the jokes and off topic opinions detract in GQ,but until I read Airman Door’s take on Dwyer ,post #6, I hadn’t considered the “selfless” reasons for the act.
Though I still consider him a premier asshole for exposing the ugly to anybody who will ever see that.

I also did not see the jokes in that particular thread as a highjack.

I consider GQ as just that. When I see someone post a serious question and they get a dozen responses but ten are joke responses it bothers me and in that case I do consider it a highjack which in the post I reported it I felt it was encouraging a highjack but I guess the mods did not agree as they did nothing. Fair enough.

I am not against humor in any forum but sometimes it runs on to the point that it even becomes boring and the intention of the question is lost. I think most people that post a question really want an answer and if it runs on with jokes someone with a serious answer may not respond since it has jumped the tracks so much.

Maybe in this case samclem was trying to keep it serious and on track but in other threads he felt the responses humorous enough not to make a comment or maybe in other threads the question was answered already so jokes after the fact are left to ride out.

I dunno I don’t pretend to read minds. It does seem it can fluctuate without rhyme or reason.

It was a pretty simple question, answered in the second post.

Beware of Doug repeated a (bad) joke, Great Dave added something that would probably count as trivia, it was hardly a mass hijacking.

I agree.

So I am not sure what your point is?

I said in the post I reported, which was on a different subject and over a month ago, that the reason I reported it was the joke that was made to me seem to encourage more jokes to highjack. Again the mods did not agree and I was fine with that.

I guess the real question is whether Budd Dwyer could have put his moderating hat on.

Lame jokes and Google fu and simple inability to read and answer questions makes GQ a much less useful forum than it could be.

Just about any GQ thread with over 10 or so responses is guaranteed to have offhand comments like those two in them, which is good for flow, humor, change of pace, to give additional trivia to those who want it, etc.- to single out those in that thread out of all of the others is indeed bizarre, unless the mod has some sort of personal connection to Mr. Dwyer.

Damn those imperfect human beings!

Perhaps, but the question i asked in the OP was not just about whether digressions from the question were permitted; it was about why some digressions are apparently fine, and some are not. If the rule is that you’re supposed to answer the question, and they’re going to come down on people who don’t answer the question, then it should apply equally to all non-answers, IMO.