SDMB etiquette questions

About This Message Board
1

I have a couple of questions pertaining to proper etiquette on this board. Since it varies, from board to board, one never knows.

First, if a Mod helps you out with something, is it appropriate to email them a thank you, or is that just adding to an already burdensome load? Of course, thanks are always appropriate, in themselves, but I know I sometimes wish people at work would just not send me those emails. They’re welcome, and I’m busy with other stuff. So, is there a rule of thumb?

Second, it’s been suggested to me that I should refrain from posting individual replies to people when there are multiple people whom I wish to address. Is this true? There are cases where I’m going to claim an exemption, should this be so, but I’d like to know, for general use.

Third, I have a question about responses. I recently started a thread that went disastrously awry (yes, that thread). When I saw that i couldn’t get it back on track, and that people were getting upset, I posted responses to their posts and then asked that the thread be closed. And, it was. But, now I feel guilty for not letting people have another crack at it, if they wanted one.

It was a highly emotional thread, although it wasn’t intended to be, and people were being extremely nice, even if half of them were ignoring the constraints I’d set (Dopers! :rolleyes: ). I asked for the thread to be closed so that other people wouldn’t become upset, for no reason (realizing, of course, that they might also be upset at not being allowed to post…but, at least then I wouldn’t have to comfort them). So, my question is a two-parter.

First, should I have given them the opportunity to continue? Second, and I’ll preface this by saying I’m not at all sure I’d want to, can a thread be reopened, if the OP changes their mind? I’m pretty sure it’s possible, technically, but I don’t know if it’s allowed.

Thanks!

2

Davebear, the OPer has plenty of leeway in deciding how far a thread can stray from its OP, especially in GQ where debates and emotional diatribes are disallowed explicitly. If a thread of yours has been hijacked to hell and you’re afraid of hurt feelings, especially if it doesn’t seem like anyone’s interested in addressing the OP at all, email a mod requesting a lockdown. Anyone still interested in either the OP or the hijack topic can form a new thread, you included.

I don’t think you need to give anyone an explicit opportunity to continue. We can figure it out ourselves. :slight_smile:

I’m not quite parsing this: Are you posting individual replies in their own posts, or are you merging all replies into the same post? If it’s the former, consider doing the latter, if only to reduce the strain on the boards and to give everyone else a single place to look. (You can section the post by creating paragraphs begun with the bolded name of the poster you’re addressing, possibly including quotes.) If I’ve missed the boat completely, please rephrase the question.

3

I have an additional question about SDMB etiquette. Is it reasonable for an OP to set constraints on what may or may not be posted to the thread? I can understand making a request that certain things not be discussed – but under certain circumstances, setting constraints seems to me to be a little absurd.

A hypothetical example: Someone posts her or his plans for the day and says:

“I fell and hit my head really hard on concrete steps last night. Now I have a headache so I’m going to drill a hole in my head to relieve the pressure – but I don’t want to talk about that.”

Isn’t it reasonable to expect that someone will try to talk that person out of it? For me, honoring a person’s request for non-discussion is out-weighed by a moral obligation to try to stop someone who might have a brain injury from doing permanent damage – even terminal damage to the self.

It would be different if the OP had fallen an injured a leg and wanted to do something drastic to stop the pain. But when damage may have been done to that part of the brain that is in control of decision making, you can bet that I will speak up unless restrained from doing so by a moderator.

Further, the title of the thread that I think the OP is referring to indicates that the OP was aware that emotions were or would be involved. To suggest otherwise hints at manipulation – even if the OP can not be held responsible at the time the original post is made.

If I have overstepped my bounds by giving an opinion in this particular message board, I offer my apologies. I don’t know if only mods are supposed to answer questions here.

Davebear, I am still concerned for you.

4

*originally posted by * Davebear

Davebear, if you include me in that group, (of all posters, I had the privilige of having my “advice” most elaborately countered by you) then at least let me reassure you, silly! And yes, I might have wanted to have another crack at it, but then I thought better of it anyway. After all, advice was not what was needed, even if I thought it was all I could offer. A common mistake, that…

Now go post something melancholically brilliant in another thread, willya ? :wink:

5

I’ve gotta say, this posting style is a LOT more work. And, I don’t really like the look, as much. As a web programmer, I can also tell you, the difference in load on the servers is minimal.

I was also expecting an answer from a Mod. Was that an incorrect assumption?

6

No, not really.

OK, shorthand style, because I’m lazy and it’s nearly time for bed over here.

It’s OK to post individual replies to indivdual posts, but it’ll make long threads even longer. It’s not set in stone, but I certainly would prefer if people would put all accumulated responses in one reply. The difference on the server load isn’t minimal, either. One post with five responses or five posts - that’s four less server loads. With a server as crowded as ours is, that’s not unimportant.

Sending mods an e-mail as a thank you is fine. If they don’t reply to it, they’re probably busy, but I can speak for all of them when I say we appreciate a “thanks” or “keep up the good work” every now and then. After all, 90% of the everyday moderating work is enforcing rules, slapping people on the wrist, et cetera. Not fun to do, especially if the offenders thank you by giving you a Pit thread (actually, we kinda dig those. And I need a couple more, manny’s leading the rankings right now, dammit.), or offensive e-mails. By that time, they’re usually already banned, but still.

The OP always has a right to ask for the thread to be closed. Usually, we honour this request ASAP. There have been exceptions, notably where people posted in the Pit to take a stab at the administration, only to then immediately ask for the thread to be closed. It doesn’t work like that, as you’ll all understand. But in your example, you found that your thread wasn’t going in the right direction, and asked for it to be closed: no problem. I’m sure the other posters in that thread understood. And if they don’t, there’s always e-mail, right?

As for Zoe’s question: the OP can request what they wish to be discussed, but no one “owns” a thread. If a moderator feels the discussion is inappropriate (either because of attitude problems, or because it simply doesn’t fit the forum description anymore), they can close or move the thread.

Does that help?

7

And no, that wasn’t really shorthand style. I can’t be brief to save my life. :slight_smile:

8

I think (in my capacity only as a humble member) it is reasonable for the OP to stipulate what they would not like a thread to become; for example a thread on antique weapons can be ruined by ‘the gun debate’, a thread on pregnancy and human development can be ruined by ‘the abortion debate’ and so on; if the OP wants to discuss an issue that does not involve the controvery and will be hindered by a sidetrack into Yet Another Polarised Debate, then the OP ought to be able to say so.

9

The OP has some nebulous “extra privileges” over his thread – he is, after all, posting the topic with an intent of getting answers from people appropriate to the forum in which it’s started (that was a tough sentence – try expressing what one expects in a GD, a GQ, and a Pit thread in one phrase!).

He does not have any “rights.”

I did once start a GD thread on what I knew was a controversial topic, and set very firm groundrules because I’d seen several threads in the previous two weeks hijacked into the same argument/flamefest. I asked the Mods. to honor them as “rules” for that thread only, in an effort to get answers that would not turn into the same flamefest. There was no criticism to speak of of my groundrules – one person said that they presumed one answer, which was by no means my intention – but it also restricted debate to the extent that the thread sank like a neutronium anvil.

10

No, it wouldn’t be. But, good server software, and I know I didn’t specify good, doesn’t work that way. Most such software makes one database query to retrieve each entire page of records, then transforms and posts it. So, it makes no difference to the sever load how many records/responses there are. It doesn’t have to make 100 database calls to retrieve 100 records; it only takes one call, regardless. Granted, more records require more storage, but that’s really minimal. I admit I’m not familiar with the package you folks run, so it may be an exception. If it is, and does that, it’s horrendously badly designed.

Okay. If I may, though, I’ll just say thank you, here, since you were the one I had in mind. Thanks! :slight_smile:

Yes, and no. That’s more of a Moderator’s viewpoint. I know you guys can move or lock threads, at your own discretion. But, are you saying the OP doesn’t have the right to constrain the discussion to the topic on which they started the thread? Mangetout’s examples sound like situations I’ve seen, and seem perfectly reasonable. If people can just highjack threads, at will, what’s the point of having a topic?

I totally agree. That’s precisely what I was trying to do. I admit it was a rambling, probably semi-coherent OP, but it did set the theme I wanted to discuss. I also specified what I didn’t want to discuss.

It seems perfectly reasonable, to me, to expect people to honor that. They can always start their own threads, if they want to discuss the proscribed issues. Or, as has been said here, already, there’s always email. I even had mine turned on.

11

Hmmm. Well, I’m obviously the newbie, around here, but that doesn’t seem right. It seems to me the OP should have the right to set the boundaries, for that thread only, beyond which behavior becomes defined as that of a jerk.

My question was general, but the thread everyone seems to be discussing was one in which I defined the boundaries by asking people not to invade my personal space. Now, I grant that they did so with the best of intentions and the warmest of hearts, and I truly appreciated the thought. But, it was, nevertheless, extremely uncomfortable for me, and totally off-topic.

I had no interest in reporting any of them, but if there are no boundaries, then I need to know, so that I can avoid any repetition of that fiasco.

12

A neutronium anvil would sink rather fast…

It also reflects how dense we can sometimes be when responding to OPs or folowing posts.

Hijacks are so normal in our Trek threads, we are offended if they don’t happen.

But, normally, I would think etiquette should be as in a RL conversation. Ignoring people is very rude IRL. Acknowledging good points is good manners. Being an asshat gets you a punch in the nose.

But, this isn’t RL, is it? Still, it’s the closest I’ve ever seen to RL in a MB.

13

Davebear What Polycarp’s aiming at [I think] is this:
Certainly you are welcome to ask that people restrict a thread’s discussion to topic X, or avoid topic Y. And you’re also allowed to ask a mod to close a thread that has more than served it’s purpose, wandered into excessively uncomfortable territory, or what have you.

And generally abiding by those wishes expressed in the OP falls under “don’t be a jerk.”

However, threads wander, whether onto a related debate, a silly tangent, or well meaning advice. And stepping out of line of the OP’s intent isn’t always a bad thing - a good number of interesting threads have evolved that way. Sometimes that’s just the way the conversation flows.

You get to point and shoot by posting the OP, but aren’t necessarily entitled to recourse if it spirals out of control. You can ask nicely, and the mods will frequently oblige, but it’s not a hard and fast thing.

I think it’s the sense of entitlement that Poly was trying to avoid in avoiding the word “right.” The word “right” on occasion causes people to jump up and down and throw temper tantrums because they aren’t getting everything they’d like to. So it’s more of a “privilege” issue than a “right”… because people don’t get themselves nearly as puffed up over privleges.

14

davebear posted:

I posted once at the other thread and expressed concern. And I posted once here before reading your response. I did not “follow” you here or harangue you. I did not call you absurd – but rather the expectation that an OP can directly control what is said. Nothing else in that post referred specifically to you except the expression of my concern.

I do have standards that I will not violate to insure anyone’s goodwill and one of them is that no one determines what I say in this world but me. It took me a very long time to learn that my cooperation in being silenced by others was part of my problem. I do not wish to be a jerk and I do not think that I have acted like one. If the moderators think that I am acting like a jerk, I respect their right to censor or warn me.

Davebear, before I read your response to me on this thread, I returned to the original thread to see if I could understand better why you posted. Unless it was to relieve some of your anguish, I don’t really know.

I thought at first that maybe that thread had been reopened and so I wrote a long response to you – only to find that the thread remained closed. Since you don’t want it posted in this thread, I will reread it to see if it is worth starting another thread. I will not direct it at you but will revise it and post it for others who may find themselves in similar circumstances – and I will be posting it in my own defense. I acknowledge that you are free to respond or not – as you choose.

If you choose to read it, I hope that you will keep in mind that it was written before you snapped at me here.

I choose not to post further to this thread for obvious reasons. If you choose to pit me, there is nothing that I can do about it.

15

Actually, I suggest you both knock that debate off. E-mail seems a better option, considering the original thread is closed.

16

“It’s dead, Jim.” Kindly bury the remains, at your convenience.