"Snarky" enough to merit a Mod Note?

[Oakminster]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

Please, do NOT pull this kind of one-toe-over-the-line again.

How about this kind of One Toke Over the Line?

"Toking" with Lawrence Welk

[Gfactor]

@Oakminster

How about this kind of One Toke Over the Line?

Sweet Jesus.

@Cliffy

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.

–Cliffy

There’s something to this. For one thing, telling someone to seek competent legal advice isn’t junior modding. It is, by its lonesome, legal and practical advice. I can think of some ways that one could express the same sentiment, that would be junior modding, at least in a technical sense, but just telling the OP he’d should ask a lawyer isn’t one of them. The tone was a bit snarky, and many posters seem to prefer to have less snark in GQ. We revised the rules a while back to clarify some of the issues involving political and other sorts of jabs, among other things. I think that happened while you were gone Cliffy.

I do think **Kimmy ** adds value to legal threads. I frequently come to threads these days to answer a legal question only to find I can’t add much to what he (and some other newer posters) have said. I also think **Kimmy **has a love for the snark, which is fine in one forum that I moderate, and not as fine in General Questions. I made a comment about it not so long ago in a different thread. All that said, I didn’t make the decision here, so I’ll defer to the guy who did.

[crazyjoe]

I’d like to note the long standing tradition in GQ that the first response NOT be snarky or joking. While I agree with Kimmy at least slightly, I think he erred by being snarky in the very first response.

I also think the thread could have and should have taken the direction of whether it’s possible to underhandedly give somenoe a severe tax liability without them making any gains from it. A couple of examples were given of ways to do this that didn’t exactly match the OP’s hypothetical, and the discussion could have continued to progress in this direction if the OP hadn’t tried to steer it back toward his own situation more specifically.

In the end, I think closing that thread was the right call, but it could have gone differently and been informative. I do have people I’d like to get back at, and handing them a huge tax liability would be just awesome

[Gfactor]

@crazyjoe

I’d like to note the long standing tradition in GQ that the first response NOT be snarky or joking. While I agree with Kimmy at least slightly, I think he erred by being snarky in the very first response.

This is another good point. That’s actually in the General Questions Rules.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@crazyjoe

In the end, I think closing that thread was the right call, but it could have gone differently and been informative. I do have people I’d like to get back at, and handing them a huge tax liability would be just awesome

If someone tries to give you a white elephant, all you have to do is say “Naw, thanks but no thanks!”. A gift only occurs if there is delivery of property, with contemporaneous donative intent, and coupled with the acceptance of the property on the part of the donee.