# :::sigh::: So now talking about pay toilets is forbidden? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 5, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135 "2005-12-05T05:12:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/101 "2005-12-06T08:56:49Z")
Yeah, the “mod hat” jazz can be a right guessing game – and something that can, in the heat of an argument, be either called up to slam home a point, or simply dismissed by “What? Of course I can say that! I had the hat off – see?” kind of statement. Which is usually followed by a rain of rotten fruit and invective fromthe non-Mods. What should be done, though? Say we have an Incident: Mod A does something, upsets a lot of folk, they take their complaints to the Pit, Mod A reacts, but doesn’t reverse the decision. The calls for blood grow louder. Behind the scenes, the fellow mods have a conflab. They discuss the Incident. If they disagree with the decision Mod A made, they get the decision reversed, and due apologetic announcement made. But what if they _don’t_ disagree? They just stay quiet? They put up a sticky stating clarification of the decision, and probably writing a new rule, and the calls of “Unfair!” grow louder? Or do they step into the fray, offering their own opinions as moderators, less likely as a “Fuck you, you runny-nosed little bastards!” than a “Look, here’s the way we see things. Why not sort it out this way?” or “Well, I think Mod A was right, because …”? Staff members _have_ been at each other in the Pit, IIRC. And it is an _ugly_ scene when that happens, and not professional at all. ---
**Author:** ![galt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/35a633/32.png) [@galt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galt)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/102 "2005-12-06T09:05:21Z")
Personally, I would have preferred a warning to chill out with the endless MPSIMmy anecdotes instead of a thread closing, but I appreciate the sentiment and don’t consider this over-moderation. I **want** a forum that’s dedicated to answering factual questions. I **want** moderators around that do not let this board drift in the direction of an unstructured free-for-all. I **loathe** MPSIMs, Cafe Society and IMHO, and I stay out of them, so any effort to keep their blather out of GQ is great in my book. Thanks, **SamClem**. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/103 "2005-12-06T16:17:10Z")
Has **samclem** been sleeping? The General Question is still rife with open threads that have been “asked and answered”. Oh the humanity! ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/104 "2005-12-06T16:40:01Z")
> [@galt](#): > > Personally, I would have preferred a warning to chill out with the endless MPSIMmy anecdotes instead of a thread closing, but I appreciate the sentiment and don’t consider this over-moderation. I **want** a forum that’s dedicated to answering factual questions. I **want** moderators around that do not let this board drift in the direction of an unstructured free-for-all. I **loathe** MPSIMs, Cafe Society and IMHO, and I stay out of them, so any effort to keep their blather out of GQ is great in my book. > > Thanks, **SamClem**. Yeah, but again the implication is that we have a choice between the idiocy of MPSIMS and GQ is a false dichotomy. It’s not worth making GQ some sterile, boring place where people get in trouble whenever they do anything but answer questions straightforwardly just to keep the occasional really stupid thread out of there. Especially since no one will bother reading and answering if it becomes deathly dull. There’s lots of threads in GQ that are informative and interesting precisely because a conversation develops around a factual matter. Look at the great thread about submarine morale right now. It’s great that we can get information without even knowing enough to ask the questions sometimes. My view, then, is that it’s best to as a matter of principle not close threads there until they cause problems. Generally this place has been moderated to the point that order is kept, without suppressing discussion. And I’d rather it stayed that way. Erring on the side of closing threads that seem anecdotal means closing a lot of interesting discussions before they’re done. As in this case, when **samclem** closed a GQ for being anecdotal _before the question had even been answered_. Is it really more important that no one shares a personal anecdote or talks off-topic than that the question gets answered in the first place? Because that’s what **samclem** did here (and **samclem** , I’ve never had a problem with you. It’s not like I think you’re doing a bad job at this. You’re just the example under discussion.) He closed a thread before the question was answered just because people were having a discussion (that we obviously were enjoying) that wasn’t strictly factual. Is it more important that GQ is sterile and impersonal than that it actually answer questions? ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/105 "2005-12-06T20:01:18Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Can you beleive nostalgia is already starting in? All right, I know I’m supposed to know what you’re talking about, but I don’t. Is this particular mod gone? ---
**Author:** ![galt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/35a633/32.png) [@galt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galt)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/106 "2005-12-06T23:26:28Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > It’s not worth making GQ some sterile, boring place where people get in trouble whenever they do anything but answer questions straightforwardly just to keep the occasional really stupid thread out of there. I wouldn’t ask them to enforce the rules that rigidly. That’s why the mods are humans; this is a subjective decision. If a GQ thread goes to 6 pages of people spouting anecdotes without anyone seeming to be interested in answering the OP, then it seems reasonable to declare it MPSIMS blather whether there’s still an unanswered question or not. Whether or not the pay toilet thread crossed the line into “not a GQ thread” or not is a judgement the mods get to make. (and unmake, as the case may be) > [@](#): > > Is it really more important that no one shares a personal anecdote or talks off-topic than that the question gets answered in the first place? False dichotomy, yourself. 🙂 I don’t think they want to stamp out personal anecdotes completely, they’re just trying to keep the place from being overrun with them. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/107 "2005-12-06T23:27:22Z")
Hmm. Seems **TYM** doesn’t have a problem [moving threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=348168) after all. Is a little staff consistency around here too much to ask? ---
**Author:** ![Mbossa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@Mbossa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mbossa)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/108 "2005-12-07T00:16:36Z")
Just in case anyone cares, here’s my opinion on the matter. I am wholeheartedly _against_ the idea of moving that thread. Let’s say someone comes up with the same question in the future. Knowing proper SD etiquette, she’ll do a search for it (limiting it to GQ – she knows how much they like to say irrelevant things about toilets in other parts of the SD). Finding no thread in GQ, she’ll start a new thread on the issue in GQ. Someone will inevitably come along and say “WE’VE ALDREDY DISSCUSSD THIS U MORON!!!1111oneonetwentyfive” (or words to that effect), and point to the MPSIMS thread. Our poster doesn’t like being talked to in this manner, and certainly doesn’t like the idea of threads being placed arbitrarily, so she leaves. We have lost a valuable (not to mention incredibly hot) hypothetical Doper. What I’m trying to say (and not in any rambling manner) is that threads should only be moved if they were misplaced by the OP, if only to assist searching in the future. That thread was definitely closed prematurely – I don’t think anyone’s arguing about that anymore. A gentle reminder to keep the thread on track would have sufficed. But mods are human. They make mistakes. I don’t think anyone can deny that. But frankly, I wasn’t too impressed with **samclem** ’s behaviour in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![galt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/35a633/32.png) [@galt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galt)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/109 "2005-12-07T00:30:55Z")
> [@Case Sensitive](#): > > Hmm. Seems **TYM** doesn’t have a problem [moving threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=348168) after all. Is a little staff consistency around here too much to ask? Did **TYM** indicate somewhere that he/she thinks threads should never be moved? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/110 "2005-12-07T00:39:38Z")
> [@Mbossa](#): > > Someone will inevitably come along and say “WE’VE ALDREDY DISSCUSSD THIS U MORON!!!1111oneonetwentyfive” (or words to that effect), and point to the MPSIMS thread. Our poster doesn’t like being talked to in this manner, and certainly doesn’t like the idea of threads being placed arbitrarily, so she leaves. We have lost a valuable (not to mention incredibly hot) hypothetical Doper. It’s been my experience that when people ask repeat questions, the people who point out previous threads are generally polite about it. I don’t recall a single instance of someone behaving in the manner you describe. The closest I remember to that kind of response is the “Google is your friend” business which can come off as condescending. Besides, if they’re guests (as opposed to members) they can’t search anyway, and when members notice that they tend to be even nicer about linking to previous threads. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/111 "2005-12-07T00:56:59Z")
**Otto** Before I forget, thanks for coming back to that thread and making a great comment. Seriously. While the re-opened thread did generate a few off-track comments(which was to be expected), the comments made afterward were very helpful. ---
**Author:** ![Mbossa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@Mbossa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mbossa)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/112 "2005-12-07T01:00:09Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > It’s been my experience that when people ask repeat questions, the people who point out previous threads are generally polite about it. I don’t recall a single instance of someone behaving in the manner you describe. The closest I remember to that kind of response is the “Google is your friend” business which can come off as condescending. > > Besides, if they’re guests (as opposed to members) they can’t search anyway, and when members notice that they tend to be even nicer about linking to previous threads. Yeah, well, nobody on this board really behaves in that manner (unless they are joking). But I still stand by my point: it’s much easier to search if the threads are left in the correct forums. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135/113 "2005-12-07T01:25:08Z")
> [@galt](#): > > Did **TYM** indicate somewhere that he/she thinks threads should never be moved? He. That thread was an MPSIMS thread from the get-go (even the OP noted that it might not belong in IMHO), and I moved it as soon as I saw it. If **Case Sensitive** believes that displays a lack of consistency on my part, that’s his/her problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-so-now-talking-about-pay-toilets-is-forbidden/334135.md?page=5)