One of the two manhattan stickies in GQ is this one. It should be taken down if you’re not going to use it.
In this thread, The Controvert made this post. I reported it when it came up on a “new posts” list. Gfactor posted next and made no public remark about the previous post.
When manhattan was the GQ mod, he would have admonished the poster at the very least. For a while, he went through and deleted the text of such posts. He suspended people from GQ IIRC. This made GQ a place where you could ask for GQ answers on political (or religious or otherwise controversial) matters and expect GQ answers. The odd little (non-political) joke in a post would be fine as long as you had something of substance as well.
It may be that The Controvert has privately been asked not to do this in GQ. But that’s not the same thing at all.
If the GQ moderators are not going to require that GQs get answers rather than commentary, so be it. It would be a shame IMHO. It doesn’t seem too much to ask - it’s not even a demand for defensible answers. But let manhattan’s sticky slide down the page if that’s how it’s going to be: at the moment it’s just taking up space.
Next time you speed past a cop and don’t get stopped, why don’t you write city hall demanding they abolish speed limits? Your argument is about that persuasive. Do you have other examples? Can you show some harm that came from this one? Does this even belong in the Pit? I mean, come one. This is my first pitting as a mod, and this is fucking it?
I didn’t respond because:
It was clearly a joke. Joke posts have their own controversy in GQ, but this one came after the OP had already thanked other posters for answering the question posed. And this wasn’t a case where a poster asked “for GQ answers on political (or religious or otherwise controversial) matters and expect GQ answers.” Instead the OP asked a science question, which was answered before a joke was posted. Joke posts in this context have always been permitted AFAICT;
The thread seemed to be doing fine because everyone else saw the post as a joke; and
I posted in the thread as a member of the board. You might note that that post, like this one, isn’t signed “Gfactor, General Questions Moderator.” At the time I hadn’t read my reported posts email.
I don’t know why the other General Questions moderators didn’t take up the gauntlet, although I suspect that their reasoning was similar to mine.
Now I’m off to review every one of your posts for rule violations. This may be a while. <---------This is what we call a joke. I’m not *really * going to do that.
No, everyone didn’t see it as a joke. One of “us” saw it as yet another drive-by attempt to be one of the SMBD kewl kids by parroting one of the groupthink memes. This has been occuring in GQ more recently and as long as the post lines up with the groupthink, it seems to be okie-dokie.
Really? Sometimes you have to get to the punch line before the joke reveals itself. Now, if you want to argue that it wasn’t funny, that’s another bag of gas. But I’m having a hard time seeing the above as anything but a joke.
The Controvert is a kewl kid now? Why wasn’t I sent the memo? Dammit people, it is hard enough keeping up with who’s kewl and who’s anti-kewl as it is.
ETA: What’s an SMBD? Is it kewl or not to have no sense of humour?
Moderators do not have time for, nor do we desire to maintain, 100% enforcement of the rules. Some violations will pass without comment, and that’s all it means: The violation passed without comment.
The fact that a moderator posts in a thread as a poster means the moderator wanted to participate in the thread as a poster. Moderator qua member post + lack of moderator qua moderator action != moderator blessing.
This is my understanding of current moderation policy as a moderator, just as it was as a member.
Not off hand, but my strong impression is that GQ moderation is lax compared to the past.
You’re a lawyer, I’m an economist. Incentives matter. Part of the harm is GQs that are not asked and good answers that are not submitted because good posters don’t bother to open threads because GQ is debased.
Keeping GQ pure is the single most important thing for these boards.
Of course.
OK, and that shows that my (weak) presumption that you had read my report was wrong.
So if you aren’t moderating to manny’s sticky, take it down.
When I’ve broken the rules I’ve either apologised before anyone has asked me about it or stated that I was breaking the rules deliberately and was prepared to take the consequences. Feel free to check. And I don’t speed.
I also reviewed the reported post. My assessment of it was exactly the same as Gfactor’s. I took it as a joke, being more a sardonic comment on rationales for war in general rather than US policy in Iraq.
Jokes are permitted in GQ. It does become something of a fine line when the joke is political. I did not regard this joke as being sufficiently specific to merit a comment by me. Not every post with some political overtones is going to elicit a reminder from a moderator.
This, however, is totally idiotic. I routinely issue comments or warnings against what I assess as being overly political comments, regardless of whether they are from the left or the right.
In general, I totally agree with the OP but it’s a losing battle. Answering the actual question with humor and sarcasm is fine. Retarded drive by “jokes” shouldn’t be permitted in GQ, IMO. I know that I am in the minority with this opinion so too bad for me.
I’m in there with you. It really curdles my milk, some of the things which people post in GQ. I’m not blaming the moderators, I just wish folks would think before they post. And keep your WAGs to yourselves!!!
Having been participating in GQ for the last eight years as a poster, I disagree strongly with that assessment. We do strive, I think, for a generally less (let us say) authoritarian tone than **manhattan **did. Perhaps politeness may be perceived as weakness by some.
Again, I disagree with this assessment. There were lots of guesses, jokes, asides, and other off-the-mark posts in the past as well.
I agree. However, if we issued a warning for every post that deviated from a strictly factual response to the OP, we’d be very busy indeed. Would you like us to moderate to the very letter of the law, and forbid all non-factual responses? Many GQ threads would soon have no more than two or three posts and would disappear from the front page in a matter of hours.
We do assess reported posts on a case-by-case basis. In the evaluation of at least two GQ moderators, the post was not sufficiently out of line to merit a comment. YMMV.
So you are alleging you have never made a non-factual post in GQ?
Being pitted as a moderator is not evidence of failure. It can be evidence of doing the job. The GQ mods should be happy to be pitted by people who are posting hijacks, commentary or opinions. I’d like to see more of it. You will be defended.
I doubt this assertion satisfies the requirements of either of our discliplines (SMBD, get it ). Do you have anything other than your “strong impression” of lax moderation to point to as evidence that this is true? Are there any other factors that might explain your hypothetical results?
:eek: While we are on the topic of politics and memes and all, the repeated use of the word “pure” kinda worries me.
Why not About This Message Board–there’s no pitting here.
As I’ve pointed out, that’s not a good presumption to make.
Where did anybody say that? The fact that we read the rules differently than you do, see **Colibri’s ** post, doesn’t mean we aren’t enforcing it.
What about violations that you don’t know about yet? I’m a lawyer, remember.
