In this thread, I detected a request for (i) fairly sophisticated legal advice by (ii) someone with the means to obtain that advice from a licensed attorney, which course of action would (iii) have the advantage of not violating the SDMB’s prohibition on using the board to get medical or legal advice. Because I am so smart, I was able to see through the “this a theoretical situation but I have to use me as an example” subterfuge.
So, I recommended, for these reasons, that he get a lawyer. Or rather I said this:
I received a mod note stating that this was “snarky and obnoxious” and that subsequent offenses would merit a warning. Someone else cited The Facts of Life.
As it turns out, I was correct. And in post #11 in the thread, the OP drops any pretense of this story being merely hypothetical. I flagged the post and the thread was closed.
Because I am feeling a little butt-hurt, and even maybe a little chilled from answering in future threads for fear of running afoul of this no “snarkiness” rule, I put it to you, fellow posters on the SDMB: Was this a mod-noteworthy instance of “snark”?
I will note in my defense that the rules prohibit insulting other posters, which I don’t think happened here. (I don’t think it even rose to the level of indirect insult, such as “Boy, you sure ask some dumb questions.”) Moreover, another thread on the permissibility of “snark” in GQ threads seems to favor my view.
Did the OP drop any pretense of the situation being hypothetial, though? I thought he was just writing his pists in charater. After all, the situation he’s proposing is not one that is likely to exist in real life. It surprised me that the thread was closed just like that - I had a reply typed out.
It was snarky. However, as per the link, back in '06 it was ruled that “a little snark is okay”. I don’t know whose job it is to quantify “a little”, but it certainly wasn’t prolonged or excessive. I think it was reasonable, although I don’t necessarily agree that the OP in the thread referenced was looking for legal advice.
Kimmy. Whether you were proven right or wrong isn’t an issue. You f*ed up.
The proper response is to report the post, explainig why you think the post was out of bounds. Pretty simple.
We, the moderators of General Questions, aren’t on here 24/7. We get to it when we can. We repond more quickly to reported posts. We may not always agree with you, and then we DON’T respond. But at least give us a chance.
As I told you, if you have a concern about the appropriateness of a thread, the proper course is to use the “report this post” button to inform a moderator rather than taking action yourself. Aside from being snarky, you were also playing junior mod.
I made it a mod note, rather than a warning, as a caution. If it had been a clear insult, I would have issued you a warning. Sniping at other posters is the kind of thing that can derail threads.
I will note you already have one official warning for insulting other posters. I think you should be more concerned about adjusting your behavior than seeing just how close you can come to insulting other posters without drawing a warning.
It was transparently obvious that this was a “my friend” question and it was always about the OP and I thought the comment by Kimmy_Gibbler was clever.
To have one mod admonish Kimmy_Gibbler and another admit that the question was indeed not hypothetical (and therefore Kimmy_Gibbler was rightly justified in seeing through the veil) is irritating.
Sure, report a post if you think it’s out of line, but with so many people doing almost exactly what Kimmy_Gibbler did, I think the note was unwarranted.
Either that or do it every, single time someone engages in “a little snark” or back off. While you’re at it, go stomp on the junior mods too. That’s not allowed, but happens time and time again with no action.
Consistency of approach is what is needed. Do it never or all the time. Don’t waver in the middle and only do it sometimes. That way lies confusion and irritation.
The OP was on the level the entire time that it was a hypothetical situation influenced by a real-world situation. In post 11, he was answering a question about the real-world situation, but the hypothetical question was still out there (and the thread shouldn’t have been closed, IMO).
As I noted to one of the mods, the rule has to prohibit excessively-detailed hypotheticals as a prophylactic measure. It is not the mods’ responsibility to distinguish between elaborate but truly hypothetical fact patterns versus the wink-and-nudge “hypothetical” fact patterns. Moreover, I’m not sure I buy this claim that one can ask a hypothetical question while one is currently mired in circumstances that greatly resemble that very same supposedly hypothetical question.
I was under the impression that “snarkiness” wasn’t allowed in this forum. Is that a misapprehension?
I get where Kimmy is coming from on this. I read the thread last night before anyone responded, and my own reaction was similar to hers. That sitatuion is way more complicated than anybody really wants to tackle on a messageboard, and obviously so. I chose to just not reply to the thread, because I got a mod note in a somewhat similar scenario a few months ago. As far as I know, I’ve never gotten a warning.
I think the mods are more protective (not really the word I want, but sorta close) about this sort of thing in GQ.
I believe Kimmy is a guy. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I wasn’t involved in that thread, so I’ll restrict myself to commenting on Kimmy’s gender.
Just as a hypothetical, based upon no real world situation to speak of, and not intended as an indirect insult or snark, but merely as a faux pas too good to be ignored, would it be against the rules to point out that the phrase “I thought he was just writing his pists in charater” might not be misspelled?
Uh - since when has “snarky” been biting enough to warrant moderator interference? Sure, it can be the start of a thread derailing. But if moderators these days aren’t “on here 24/7”, wouldn’t their time be better spent responding to actual occurences of infractions, rather than fucking babysitting us? Kimmy’s response wasn’t an insult, and still wouldn’t have been if he had said, “this is a stupid fucking question - get yourself a goddamn lawyer”. It would have been rude and obnoxious, but rude and obnoxious is what keeps 75% of the long-time denizens around this place.
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? If someone is constantly a complete douche, then how about we not act surprised when a borderline call goes against them…
Sorry, in any case where Professional advice is best, it should always be Ok to suggest consulting a Professional in the field. I usually side with the Mods, but this was a bad call. Sorry.
Word up, Kimmy. Sure it’s snarky, but man, talk about some mild shit. I am quite sure I’ve posted something of exactly the same character in legal threads. IMHO, Kimmy is a valuable addition to the board, and is already one of the best, most comprehensive posters in legal threads. It’s be a shame if he was dissuaded from participating because some of the mods think he’s a little abrasive. Perhaps this is elitist, but it’s always seemed to me that lawyers have often been given some leeway to junior mod when people are asking for legal advice; after all, snarky as it may have been, Kimmy’s response was a substantively valuable answer; probably the best one the OP could have received under the circumstances.
OK, another reminder: personal insults are not permitted in this forum. Cool it, Hal Briston.
I’m not making this one “official” because it is couched in the somewhat ambiguous terms “when someone…” However, in context, it’s very clear who and what you’re talking about and it’s a personal insult. Please, do NOT pull this kind of one-toe-over-the-line again.
