Thanks a bunch Czarcasm

Maybe a title change would help, like “Humble Opinions (not arguments) wanted on Presidential Debates” or something like that.

When I came here, it was my impression that the mods were here to guide us. Czarcasm’s action and subsequent post here about it does not seem like guidance, it looks like tyranny. “If you don’t like it, do it my way, or, too bad!”

I suppose you could complain about the action: turn in a bad post report. (That’s that little square in the upper right hand corner of the screen.) I don’t know if there’s a way to complain about the actions of Mods; wish I did know.

Some Mods here are consistant, and gentle with posters. In fact most of the mods explain their actions in terms anyone can understand, don’t take sides, don’t discriminate against selected posters and offer options for changing things. A few others, don’t. Even Mods are human.

It does seem like it’s getting harder and harder to express an opinion around here without getting into a huge debate or winding up in the pit. I can deal with any forum here but when I ask for an opinion or would like to simply express one I’m not looking for a bunch of cites and/or foulmouths hijacking the thread.

If I think IMHO that Bush is dishonest and Kerry is weak that is my opinion. Not just mine but lots of folks. I don’t need cites to corroborate my opinion. I don’t need cites from you either. I don’t trust Bush OR Kerry and no cites or barrage of profanity is going to change that.

Because this was a political subject I can understand why (maybe) it was moved. This election has people on edge and practically every thread I’ve seen winds up in a damned fight.
I think I’ll just quit starting any threads altogether.

I’ll say this though…I wouldn’t want to have to moderate around here for the next month or so. It’s probably gonna get worse before it gets better.

I know how ya feel Otto The thing is…I understand Czarcasm’s attempt to “nip it in the bud” or at least keep 'em all together. I thought about starting a similar thread myself but I’m tired of the crap some people feel obligated to bring to a thread they don’t like.
Somebody (a mod) said recently? If you don’t like it, don’t read it. I can’t recall who at this time but he said a mouthful.

BTW Kerry never did actually stand face in front of the camera and say (point blank) what the man asked him to.

On the money! Often I’d rather post in BBQ where I don’t have to worry whether–gosh!–I might have flamed someone. Not having to worry means you can just relax and write.

Also, the flames one gets here are surprisingly non-insulting. I just got flamed by Brutus for my beliefs re so-called paranormal phenomena. It merely tickles. I’m not going to hold a grudge. But sometimes the “flame-free” GD atmosphere can be genuinely psychically damaging. I don’t know what it is, but there you go.

I don’t get it though. You’re willing to post to a thread in IMHO, but not in an identical thread because it’s in Great Debates?

You know they only call them rooms. They’re not real. You’re not actually walking into a room. Nobody’s going to mug you.

If it’s a thread you’re interested in, what’s the difference if it’s in The Pit, Great Debates or The Pepper Room at Emeril’s BAM Message Boards? I mean if all else about the thread is equal except where it’s “located” … I don’t get it.

Because, oooh, Great Debates is * soooo * scary. Sorry, no sympathy from me.

And I thought it was just me. I was worrying a bit, because I’d been spending a lot of time here in the Pit and almost none in GD, although part of it’s because I’ve been tired of this election for some months now. I’ve read the same old arguments regarding Bush and Kerry more times than I can count, and they’ve lost what little interest they had. I find, too, I’m missing the good, old, religious dustups we had.

Great Debates is, in my humble opinion ;), the toughest forum we have. It may be where I cut my teeth, but it’s not for amateurs. I don’t blame people for being nervous about venturing in there; it scares me sometimes, too! I’m interested in the opinions of people who don’t go wading into GD with a stack of cites, a pile of references, and arguments set in stone and handed down by God, Himself. :slight_smile: (This is an ironic reference which could apply to Polycarp and me.)

I understand the rationale, but I was sorry to see the thread closed.


Hmmm. I find Kerry’s voice more reminiscent of Ted Baxter.

OH, please. The Mods do have their acts together. It may not be as rigidly controlled as you’re implying you would like, but it suits us just fine. I’m going to interpret (kindly) that you’re trying to say that there is some ambiguity in the classifications. Damn right. We don’t WANT to have a 600 page document, rigidly defining each category, constantly updated by a full staff of 40 paralegals. The very nature of calling some things a “humble opinion” and some things “mundane” means that there is going to be some in-betweens. The Mods interpret based on the circumstances, much as the U.S. courts tackle discrimination cases based on the individual circumstances without trying to define rigidly what every possible discrimination case must look like.

The Mods also are not around 24/7. That means that sometimes we need to react quickly, before responses are posted.

Am I saying that no political thread can appear in IMHO? Certainly not. But I’m saying that your opening post looked like a debate opener (headed “Do I get to start the Pres debate round 2 thread?”), walked like a debate opener, and smelled like a debate opener. I’da done just what Czarcasm did, and so would any Mod.

The thread that you say you wanted would have started with something like, “I don’t want a debate on the issues, I’d just like some random thoughts. I didn’t like Bush’s tie, and Kerry had nose hairs visible. Anyone else?” … and then it would have been clearly IMHO and left there.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If we’re talking politics, and specifically Presidential Debates, then:

  • “How are the rules determined for the Presidential Debates?” belongs in General Questions
  • “Who won the Presidential Debate?” belongs in Great Debates
  • “If you taped the Presidential Debate and play it synchronized to Toscanini’s 1953 recording of the final movement of Beethoven’s Symphony #3, it fits perfectly!” belongs in Cafe Society.
  • “I had tickets and was sitting in row ZZ!” belongs in MPSIMS.
  • “I hate watching debates because they’re so confusing.” belongs in IMHO
  • “God, what assholes and liars these guys are!” belongs in the Pit.

It’s not the topic per se, it’s the way the topic is presented and handled.

[sub]Damn. Now I gotta get my act together.[/sub]

I suggest Act II, Scene III from Titus Andronicus. It’s very tongue-out-of-cheek.

Complete agreement. I’ve stated that very thing before, and I’m glad that, now that you’ve stated it as well, people like Lissener who ridiculed me for the same thing will praise you. I might have blazed the trail, but you play a pretty pipe.

at least until they get hijacked by someone with a bete noire to flog
Well now you know why I’m wary of the GD.

Cite so we can start loving you, you magnificent bastard.

Are you seriously suggesting that you see no tonal differences between threads posted in GD and posts on the same or similar topics posted in IMHO?

Besides, had I posted the thread in GD it still would have been locked as a duplicate.

As I said, there was a reason I posted it in the forum I did. And there was even precedent on my side.

Did I use the word “scary,” fucker? Did I ask for or do I give a flaming shit about your "sympathy?

Then you and any other Mod would be equally wrong in the face of allowing the thread on the first debate to stand. How is my OP

differ so much from **Meatros’ OP

that one must be locked down 30 minutes after being opened and the other is still open and active a week later?

And I’m sorry but this

is not only completely ridiculous but false on its face in light of the 9/30 debate thread. But fine, if it will get the thread opened, please feel free to edit my post and stick the words “in my opinion” and “don’t want debate” and “nose hairs” into it at your discretion, or else I can repost the thread and add a nose hair component if you’d like.

Or you could just acknowledge that locking the thread was maybe a bit premature?

GD is the domain of the people who survived being fragged by their own troops in Vietnam.

So it’s not just me! Bring back the civilized debate!

By placing his thread in IMHO, I think that Otto was giving us a reasonably good clue about the level of discussion that he wanted from us. Along with several others, I would have felt more comfortable expressing my opinion there. I assume that Czarcasm didn’t consider the possible benefits of a 2nd thread with a different purpose and that’s understandable.

Maybe the appropriate mod response would have been to add a note to the OP:

Mod’s Note:
Please remember we are in IMHO, there is a similar thread in GD [link] for your more heated and cite laiden posts. The BBQ Pit is also always available.

What sort of “tonal difference” were you hoping for? A topic is a topic. A thread is a thread. The thread you started was identical to the thread in GD.

If I see a thread in GQ about how many zip codes there are in Colorado, but I “just don’t like GQ,” should I start a new thread in the Pit because I want to say, “fuck” when I answer the question?

Suck it up man. If you want to wade into the thread, wade. Who gives a shit which forum it’s in.

The mods apparently. I’m puzzled that you don’t get how a subject can be discussed differently in a different forum. Are you just trying to prove what a rugged roll-with-the-punches intellectual you are?

The threads were identical.

Read the thread in GQ. Imagine it in IMHO. Fits, don’t it?

People just need to stop being so fucking whiny about … “ooh you mean old mod you closed my thread.”