# So factual jr modding is OK now? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 19, 2014, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512 "2014-07-19T04:42:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/141 "2014-07-22T15:00:27Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Most of the mods believe that being annoying is not a warnable offense. (Being annoying is not the same as “being a jerk.”) Hence, no scolding was issued, nor should be. I understand that this kind of thing is a judgement call on the mods part and I have no problem with it, especially when there is a muddy middle ground. In this case, though, it seems clear that he was way over the line and into violating the first rule territory. And honestly, it seems that defining his posts as simply “annoying” is a way for you to not have to deal with this situation. Take the following snippet from that thread. **Czarcasm** : _Please cite any of these so-called “facts” that you wish to discuss._ **Daz ‘the burner’ Rush** : \*Czarcasm, if you were to correctly read my post i did not mention anything as ‘fact’, merely something that ‘has been said’. \* **Czarcasm** : Again, said by who? **Daz ‘the burner’ Rush** : _Why exactly does this matter, if you understand the general point i was trying to make? It could be some bloke at a bar, it was a glib statement used to make a point._ **Czarcasm** : _It matters who said it if we are to consider it as a possible statement of fact._ Czarcasm’s first post mischaracterizes the OP. The OP clarifies his position and the terms he did not use. Czarcasm’s following posts continue paint the OP’s words in a different light than intended _after_ the OP has explained he was not presenting them as “facts”. Is that really OK in GQ? If the OP had claimed they were facts, I would have no problem with that exchange but as it stands it just seems to run afoul of how GQ should be conducted. I mean, isn’t Czarcasm’s (posts) continued putting words in the OP’s mouth moddable? I realize he didn’t use quote tags but still… ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/142 "2014-07-22T15:09:37Z")
Not only did those posts violate rule #1, but also was clearly threadshitting. As \*\*PlainJain \*\*said, labeling it as “annoying” seems to just be a way to defend poor moderation. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/143 "2014-07-22T15:16:33Z")
IIRC, there was a thread here in ATMB where a poster asked whether or not it was within the rules to continue to ask the same (or very similar) question of a member posting in a thread. The context was, I believe, related to repeated calls for a cite. Again, my memory is even worst than my search skills, but IIRC, TomnDebb (or the staff member) answered that once was fine, twice was forgivable, but three times could border on harassment. (paraphrased and likely misquoted) Does anyone have a link to that thread? I’m curious as to whether I actually remember it correctly and whether or not it would be relevant. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/144 "2014-07-22T15:21:58Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > **Czarcasm** : _Please cite any of these so-called “facts” that you wish to discuss._ > > **Daz ‘the burner’ Rush** : \*Czarcasm, if you were to correctly read my post i did not mention anything as ‘fact’, merely something that ‘has been said’. > \* > **Czarcasm** : Again, said by who? > > **Daz ‘the burner’ Rush** : _Why exactly does this matter, if you understand the general point i was trying to make? It could be some bloke at a bar, it was a glib statement used to make a point._ > > **Czarcasm** : _It matters who said it if we are to consider it as a possible statement of fact._ **PlainJain and Joey P (post #105)** have very kindly summarized **Czarcasm’s** “contributions” to the _General Questions_ thread. It that is not being a jerk, what is? I guess I need a reminder course since I thought that if it seems apparent to most dopers that a post looks, walks, and talks like a jerk, it probably indicates jerkish behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/145 "2014-07-22T15:39:59Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > IIRC, there was a thread here in ATMB where a poster asked whether or not it was within the rules to continue to ask the same (or very similar) question of a member posting in a thread. The context was, I believe, related to repeated calls for a cite. > > Again, my memory is even worst than my search skills, but IIRC, TomnDebb (or the staff member) answered that once was fine, twice was forgivable, but three times could border on harassment. (paraphrased and likely misquoted) > > Does anyone have a link to that thread? I’m curious as to whether I actually remember it correctly and whether or not it would be relevant. There have been bunches. [Here’s one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=661229). Per Tomndebb, asking 3 times is over the line into badgering territory. > [@Tomndebb](#): > > No one is compelled to respond to another poster’s questions. greenslime is correct that if you have asked a question three times with no answer, the person questioned is likely not going to do so at subsequent requests. > > Persistent badgering for an answer is harrassment and it will stop. > > On the other hand, it is also true that a poster who makes an assertion that he or she refuses to support may be simply ducking the fact that the idea has no support and other posters are free to point out that fact. [Here’s another.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=575082) > [@Tomndebb](#): > > At which point [_when a question is asked and the poster refuses to answer-Fenris_], that aspect of the discussion is closed. Asking once is fine. If he chooses to not answer, you will not continue to interrupt the thread with repeated demands. > > Any further demands for a directed response are badgering… I realize that Banquet Bear is likely to post that it’s another forum and has absolutely nothing in common with this situation like he posted last time I provided a cite, but for the rest of us, it’s pretty clear. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/146 "2014-07-22T16:34:21Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > **PlainJain and Joey P (post #105)** have very kindly summarized **Czarcasm’s** “contributions” to the _General Questions_ thread. > > It that is not being a jerk, what is? I guess I need a reminder course since I thought that if it seems apparent to most dopers that a post looks, walks, and talks like a jerk, it probably indicates jerkish behavior. According to the mods those posts were not jerkish. Per post 16 they “might have been beligerant” and post 23 they were “aggressive” and neither of those two things cross the line into being a “jerk” in General Questions. Also per post 71 who cares if those posts were “annoying” being annoying in General Questions is not against the rules. Oddly posts 16 and 23 seem to be talking about the poster and not the posts. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/147 "2014-07-22T16:44:49Z")
Here’s one from Marley saying the same thing > [@Clarification, Tom?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-tom/631184/8): > > I have to agree with **tomndebb** here, although I understand the frustration. If someone makes a claim and can’t or won’t produce a cite, asking over and over and over doesn’t accomplish anything other than derailing the thread. Ask, say, two times and let the failure to produce a cite speak for itself or say “I see you still can’t come up with that cite” and let it go. And he also (correctly, IMO) points out that it derails the thread. Which, until post 16 of this thread, was against the rules. Now deliberately badgering a poster for an answer is “an interesting digression” ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/148 "2014-07-22T17:08:30Z")
And another (in a thread started by THE POSTER WHO MUST NOT BE MENTIONED, coincidentally). > [@"Ask The.." thread in Great Debates](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-thread-in-great-debates/554097/115): > > I had no problem with questions about the OP’s views of Eretz Yisrael or how the the OP viewed international opinions on the settlements. On the other hand, I have never agreed with the notion that every poster is entitled to badger any other poster to demand a specific answer. Once a poster has responded, as long as the response is not evasive, further badgering for a different answer is simply harrassment. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/149 "2014-07-22T17:14:32Z")
Stop making sense, **Fenris** , before that too becomes against the rules. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512/150 "2014-07-22T18:14:55Z")
Whoa! This is definitely not About This Message Board material at this point. Closed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-factual-jr-modding-is-ok-now/693512.md?page=7)