OK over here in GQ there is a question about the depth of the average vagina. .
After 8 responses I post a light hearted reply
Then Rysdad quotes my post and riffs on it a bit
Then in the very next post Samclem shows up and posts a warning .
Scuse me but WTF? Since when is a light hearted reply not allowed in GQ? Espically if several posts had addressed the OP.
Just how long would the 1920’s death ray thread have been without light hearted replys?
I think Wolfian nailed it
I am not intent on breaking the rules, but I enjoy a laugh as much as the next guy.
Can I buy a vowel here?
I don’t think it was just you, there were several joke posts in the thread.
I totally agree with the “WTF” sentiment, as GQ wouldn’t be nearly as fun without the jokes - and topics of an inherently sexual nature are of course going to garner more of them.
Rick. It certainly wasn’t directed at you. Sorry about the juxtaposition.
The first two responses to the OP were jokes. While later posts included some relevant info, I felt the jokes would overwhelm and/or hijack the thread even more.
Instead of singling out any one poster, I decided to make it a general warning.
Just my call. I quite often post joke comments in GQ, and I think it’s a good thing in general.
So what your saying is (and, please, correct me if I’m wrong), there’s a line somewhere, and we’re not supposed to cross it, but we don’t really have any idea where that line is and there’s nothing saying it’s in the same place from one day to the next?
Considering the subject matter, I’m not sure those would work in this particular case.
I think samclem ought to have a sticky in GQ titled, “Calm down, I’m not yelling at you,” with this answer. It seems like every other month a GQ jokejack gets out of hand and has to be shut down, and one of the participants starts a pit thread. It should also include a complete list of titles of all the threads like this, so if you want to start one anyway, you can come up with something original.
Yes, the Board is kind of like real life that way.
Given that the Warning was not addressed to any single poster, it shouldn’t affect any poster’s actual record with the administration. (samclem can correct me if I’m wrong.) It would only come into play if the hijacks continued.
Possibly the word “Warning” was a little strong, but I can see the rationale for an admonition, since that thread had the potential for the jokes to completely overwhelm any actual factual information that might have been contributed.
:smack:
I left out a couple of 3s. 4,000,000 / 12 =333,333.33
333,333 / 5,280 =63.13
Right answer in the end, wrong number of 3s in the middle.
::: Grumble::: Leave it to a doper to notice a math error.
Samclem Thanks for the clarification. I’m not upset over this, I was just genuinely puzzled.
Actually, I agree with the GQ Mods on this, and in fact they don’t go far enough, IMHO.
Too many “joke” replies before we get the OP’s question completely and finally answered. Once the question is really, truely answered, then fine, let your inner Carrot Top out.
(Yes, Carrot top is not funny, just annoying: which is exactly why I used him as an example)
Yes and no. We’ve always resisted trying to draft up a “law code” that would define exactly what’s OK and what’s not. Such a document would run to hundreds of pages, no one wants to draw it up and no one wants to read it, and it still wouldn’t cover some situations. So, the answer is that most of our moderation and rulings are “situational.” The joke about the one-legged man and the parrot might be appropriate and humourous in the thread about talking birds, but gross and offensive in the thread about disabilities.
And, of course, moderators can’t read everything. So, a similar offense that wasn’t reported might go completely unnoticed. It’s an inconsistency that we’re sort of stuck with, kind of like the cops can’t stop every speeding car.