So exactly why was it neccessary to lock down thispoll
This is what you said
Because the thread has served its purpose ?
Well it is my thread and yes it has served its purpose(even though you never asked me)
What gets me is that these poll threads including ones that I’ve started do have a short life, disappear and that’s the end of it. Usually, locking a thread has a very good reason for it. Using the excuse of “it served its purpose” is normally used to avoid inevitable rancour. We’ve had thousands of threads that have served their purpose. gone off the rails and persist. The pro bono thread for example.
That certainly wasn’t a problem in this case.
The thread in question was only 3 days old.
Just what were you trying to thwart by locking this thread?
Were I still an IMHO mod, earlier in my career I would have closed it as soon as I saw it, on the grounds that the comments in such a poll would verge on a popularity contest. Such threads are troublesome, and turn into attacks and defenses of popular and unpopular posters, such posts (in general) being more suited for the Pit.
The alternative is to issue notes and warnings to those who cannot stay on subject, and cannot resist naming names. In that type of thread, that approach tends to turn into a blizzard of Moderator Notes.
Neither of these actions are popular.
What approach would you suggest to keep the poll a poll, and not argument about specific posters?
I’m not sure exactly why you’re complaining then. First of all, this is a policy that the admin of this board would never, ever, possibly consider. Second, there was overwhelming sentiment against it, from all sides of the political spectrum.
To my eyes (who has no particular dog in this fight), it certainly was. Rancor was not only inevitable, it was already taking place. There already was considerable sniping going on between and about various posters. If I were an IMHO mod I would have considered issuing several mod notes if not warnings in that thread. It really was overdue for closing.
That was a potential tinder box of a thread. What purpose would be served in leaving it open? You had already found out there was strong opposition to a policy that never would have been implemented.
Not a valid comparison, since that’s a Pit thread. I suppose your thread could have been moved to the Pit, but polls aren’t enabled there.
Did you contact SoP or one of the other IMHO mods to make your case before opening this thread? If not, why not?
And incidentally, let’s not have a replay of that thread here. Please refrain from making negative comments about other specific posters in this thread.
Actually, I don’t have a problem with the fact that TFD didn’t ask the IMHO mods for permission, other than the fact it probably should have gone into ATMB. There’s no clear rule violation as far as I can see.
Because it had already been rolling along for awhile in IMHO, I decided to let it continue to roll, and stay where it was. By mid-morning today, after heavy voting, it was clear that the result wasn’t any less decisive so I closed it. As for “serving its purpose”, well, it’s done that. The OP has a clear result.
I seem to be the first mod, if not Doper overall, to have a thread about me opened with just my name as the subject. I don’t know whether to be pleased about that or not. In the interest of clarity, though, I’m going to ask the ATMB mods to change the title to indicate what other thread we’re talking about here.
To clarify, I wasn’t saying that The Flying Dutchman should have run the idea for the poll thread by the IMHO mods before opening it (although that probably would have been a good idea. I don’t think that the thread was a rule violation, just a bad idea). I was saying that, since you had asked posters who disagreed with the closing of the poll thread to contact you or one of the other IMHO mods, it would have been better for The Flying Dutchman to take that approach initially rather than opening this thread in ATMB.
The invitation to contact a mod is to present a “good reason not to” close the thread in question. I don’t have any good reasons. All I have is a question why.
Besides, the invitation was not specific as to how to contact a mod. It was my understanding that questions regarding mod actions belong in ATMB.
Earlier you described the thread as a misery, a purely subjective opinion. You’ve used the reason “serving its purpose” for closing the thread , as if you were holding your nose while honouring my wish to gauge the opinion of the membership.
Gee, was it that horrible ?
It wasn’t intended to be about you. The title was to draw your attention. However in future I will be more specific.
If you have a specific question about the action of a specific moderator, the best way to resolve that issue is to contact that particular moderator directly through PM or e-mail. I’ve re-opened threads and also rescinded warnings based on PMs or e-mails from the poster in question.
Since Spectre’s suggestion was to contact either him or one of the other IMHO mods (rather than any moderator), I think it’s pretty obvious that this implies doing so by PM or e-mail.
Not about me? When the title consists of my name, and nothing else? Nevertheless, far from considering it an affront, I found that aspect of it rather amusing. Next time, though, keep in mind that we like to have descriptive thread titles, so if you must name the moderator, don’t forget to also include something to indicate his or her action that you want to discuss. A No-Click rule is generally good for thread titles–you can decide in zero clicks if you want to read the thread.
By “this” thread, I thought Colibri meant TFD’s original thread. It was to that thread I was referring in my comments here.
As for this thread in which I am posting right now, this second, Colibri makes an excellent point. It would have been better if we’d been asked beforehand. IMHO, it’s a done deal now though, and I’m not going address that specific issue at this point.
I wasn’t looking to resolve an issue. I wasn’t looking to re-open the thread in question. I simply wanted to ascertain the reason why a thread was locked. That the thread “has run its course” doesn’t convince me or we’d see threads locked all over the place. That the thread was miserable? What the hell does that mean? My intention was not to convince a mod to change their ruling but rather to inform myself and others as to what can get your thread locked. Thus , using the ATMB was my best course of action. BTW asking for mod ruling clarification in ATBM is perfectly acceptable in case you didn’t know. Spectre has still not addressed my question. I don’t need others to suggest explanations. I want him/her to tell me exactly what was bothering him about my thread.
The idea of “Survivor” style voting on this message board is simply not a good idea. The thread on the subject is an invitation to as to who the likely first targets would be, as well as remarks about specific individuals. Others in the thread pointed out correctly that it would encourage a mob mentality and dampen discussion. Besides, anyone can effectively “vote off” another person by using the ignore feature.
ETA: (1) I think you’ll see what I mean if you re-read the other thread carefully. (2) I’m a dude.
Just as an observation – and emphatically NOT a threat, à la Melingate – there is one good LEGAL reason not to adopt “voting people off” beyond the very practical ones already advanced. The Reader and its successor owners have always been very chary of allowing members to do anything that could potentially involve it in legal action. Now, if you think about it, Members and Charter Members, as opposed to Guests, have paid an annual fee to the Reader for certain privileges – contingent on their not violating board TOS and rules, that constitutes a binding contract, enforceable at law, even though for a fairly small sum. The idea that one could lose the posting privileges they have paid for as the result of a popularity contest would be something that is at least theoretically grounds for a lawsuit. While such a thing is both unlikely and more a bit of nuisance value than a real threat to the board’s viability, allowing a paid member to be voted off as the result of a(n un)popularity contest would be indefensible – nothing in the TOS or board rules provides for loss of posting privileges for that reason. I reiterate that this is not to be construed as any sort of threat – it’s noting a potential problem with a suggestion from a legal standpoint, for what use it may be to those administering the board and making such decisions.
Plus all the practical reasons of building community, building up membership, giving space to all sorts of different viewpoints, etc. It’s probably substantially more stupid an idea than the oddest of conspiracy theories, IMHO.
How would that be any different than banning any other paying member? I doubt very much if “being a jerk” is any more legally defensible than voting someone off the island. The Reader keeps the subscription money in either case.
Although you are almost certainly correct that a threat of lawsuit is hardly more than a nuisance in any case.
Bans based on unpopularity are a bad idea in any case, IMO. And not necessarily for the obvious reasons in my case.
I don’t do any more than occasionally look at polls. Opinion imho ain’t worth much.
Don’t ask me why I look at and post anywhere but GQ. After all, I came here thru SD in print to dispel my ignorance. Love the net.
So your OP brought me to your closed poll and I was gratified to find that my big mouth and weird ideas, if not liked, are tolerated here.
I’ve been here 1+ yrs and have evolved in verbal expression. When I came on board, I was a brash young man with big ideas and the nimble fingers to prove it thru bombast. The mods here brought me to reason thru closing many of my OPs and issuing me one official Warning to get me to read the Pit rules.
My lesson (learning as I write) is well summed in BigT’s post in your defunct poll.
