While there is overlap between GD and IMHO, it’s been my experience that more general conversation gets drowned out in GD by the massive branching out, chasing down every detail/cite. IMHO lends itself better to get an idea of the general perception rather than who is more FOS. YMMV
Jack, looks like you’ve been around here long enough to be ‘in the know.’
Different rules make different rooms like different countries with different laws. I get arrested for “flaming” in GD, but in the pit, it’s permissable. In IMHO I can state my opinion without having to defend it.
That’s why we got different ‘rooms.’
I think that Botox may win the election this time…
Yeah, I know. But the “tone” of this OP leads me to believe that the only reason he started a thread (an identical one) in IMHO is because he didn’t feel like posting in the one in GD.
And you know what? Fine … give it a shot. Ain’t no skin off my dick. But when a mod comes and says, “we already got the same thread going over here,” what’s with the wah wah wah bit? That’s all I’m saying.
Relax. Kick back. Loosen up the wrappings.
Um, that’s kind of the point. I don’t want to wade into a 20-page Great Debates clusterfuck. I would have liked some basic discussion on people’s impressions of the debate without it getting nasty, extraordinarily partisan, or to the level of “yeah, well, Kerry said XYZ and this obscure site that I spent three hours searching for clearly indicates that it’s really XYQ.”
Obviously there are other people who feel the same. Obviously the Mods see some value in this sort of thread because they let one on the first debate stay open. But apparently because I didn’t properly phrase the OP to Czarcasm’s previously unknown specifications it gets locked down. Czarcasm made a wrong call on this, and continues to stand by the wrong call.
You know, sort of like the IMHO thread on the first debate that is still ongoing unmolested by Moderators despite there undoubtedly being at least one thread on the first debate in GD.
And amazingly enough, you were wrong the first time you thought so and you continue to be wrong now. The threads were not identical.
Because my thread was intended to serve a different purpose than the GD thread. Are you deliberately being an asshole, excuse me, “devil’s advocate,” or do you really not understand this?
And by the way, great job reducing this to “Otto’s a whiny baby.” Shows a deep grasp on your part of what’s actually going on. Not to mention strong reading comprehension. Smashing job.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. If your point is that they’re NOT different, then that’s just what Czarcasm was saying. If you’re trying to say that the two posts ARE different, then, sorry, I don’t have half an hour to do a compare-and-contrast analysis to figure it out.
You’ve now asked that your post be edited to be more IMHO-friendly. Sorry, but we don’t go through editing posts (or titles) to make them fit what we think might, possibly, have likely been the true intention of the OP. If you want to start a thread in IMHO with a completely different focus, then send a draft in email to the IMHO-moderators.
Or, alternately, you could start a Pit Thread and try to stir up another temptress in a teapot.
Did you read the GD thread on the debate? Either of them? You know what they were?
Basic discussion on people’s impressions of the debate. Without the obscure three-hour-researching cites. One or two line summaries of what just happened. Eighteen people posting “Internets?!?!111”
In other words, I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to say “Well, I think President Bush looks a bit flustered, while Kerry needed to hammer home this point a little more.” That would have been perfectly acceptable. Basically happened several times.
Why don’t you read through the most recent one in GD, and then maybe you’d be able to better formulate how you expected one in IMHO to be different.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Are you deliberately being an asshole, excuse me, “devil’s advocate,” or do you really not understand this?
[QUOTE]
Neither. I’m just deliberately being not as tightly fucking wrapped as you are, Poindexter.
As far as “Otto’s whine” … hey, if walks like a duck …
Pfft, ladt, them weren’t arguments, them was “Don’t do that! Or that! Or that! Or I’m pulling this car RIGHT over and NOBODY will get 76 virgins!” 
Meeeowww!
Yes, I’m noticing it too. My theory, which is really just a WAG, is that the people who are simply trying to derail a thread get shouted down in the Pit but can only be gently reprimanded in GD. There are some who want to hide behind the moderators’ skirts… er… pants… er… togas?
Actually, we’re all nude. You have no idea how much more thrilling it is to moderate a board without the constriction of clothes. It is mandatory. I had to sign an agreement.
Now that Winter is approaching, I’m having second thoughts. :eek:
I see the key word here being *act[/]…
shoulda been act
there ought to be an automatic preview for ignorant asses like myself :wally
No shit.
And I don’t have a half an hour to figure out how you could have missed the point any more completely, so let me try to explain it agian.
Meatros opened a thread in IMHO, the topic of which was the first presidential debate. In his OP, he asked the question “Who do you think won the debate?”
Here we have Moderator fuck-up number one. According to Dexter’s Law on Presidential Debate Threads:
and yet here we have that very question in the OP of a <gasp> IMHO thread! Somehow, the SDMB not only survived with this grossly misplaced thread, it thrived. The related question is, of course, was Moderator fuck-up number one on the part of the IMHO Mods who failed to lock or move Meatros’ thread or on the part of C K Dexter Haven in formulating Dexter’s Law on Presidential Debate Threads?
Fast forward to moments after the end of the second presidential debate. Going by the example offered by Meatros, and not really interested in the sort of thread that tends to propogate in GD, I started a Meatros-like thread on the second debate in the same forum where Meatros started his.
I can see where this might be the confusing part for you, seeing as how I only said about three times here so far before this that Meatros’ thread was in IMHO, but let’s move on, secure in the hope that the scales are starting to slip from your eyes a bit.
Anyway, this leads to Moderator fuck-up number two. Czarcasm, who apparently saw the word “debate” in the thread title and had some sort of episode which made him forget that he had allowed the exact same sort of thread in the exact same forum a week earlier, locks it down.
Moderator fuck-ups three and four are your and his refusal to acknowledge Moderator fuck-ups one and two. I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to which one came first.
Glad to hear it, since the intent of the post and the title were both perfectly clear to countless other people who viewed them.
But there really is no need to fib about not editing thread titles. Of course you sometimes edit thread titles to make them fall more in line with the intent of the OP.
The really funny bit about your fib is that I never asked you to edit my thread title, so why you felt the need to stick that little fib in there, unless you really felt the need to get sniffy about it (which I guess you did) is a mystery.
No, I don’t think I’ll bother with that. The OP as it stands was perfectly clear in its intent to a large number of other people. I don’t feel like bothering with trying to re-write it to conform to the unknown and ever-changing standards of Dexter’s Law.
Yeah, yeah, screw you too buddy, what the fuck ever.
If you want to start a poll about who did better in a televised debate concerning a national election, it can stay in IMHO as long as everyone cooperates in stating their opinion without criticizing the opinions of others.
If, on the other hand, your desire is to have a debate about the very same subject, and the only reason you have for putting it in IMHO instead of Great Debates is because you don’t like venturing into Great Debates, tough.
I’ve done this for awhile now, and even if I stretched the rules of the game and allowed this, I can pretty much predict how a thread on such an explosive subject will turn out. The thread I closed in IMHO would have fit perfectly in the thread on the very same topic in Great Debates.
Oh…by the way…at your one-year mod anniversary, Ed and the admins will make you start doing your moderating in lacy lingerie.
Talk about thrilling. (Are my seams straight?)
Except you left a thread on the first debate open in IMHO. Which pretty much puts the lie to, well, pretty much most of what you just said.
Maybe in future instead of relying on your powers of prognostication you should look to the examples that already exist. Meatros’ thread didn’t denigrate into something inappropriate to IMHO and there is no logical reason to think that mine would have either. This bizarre notion that I wanted to have a “debate” about the debate because the word “debate” appeared in the title of a thread about a fucking DEBATE!!! is completely ludicrous, and the equally bizarre notion that my thread would have passed muster if I’d included some magical phrase like “who won?” is just fucking stupid. I offered opinions on the debate in an opinon forum that already had at least one active thread on a previous debate. Where could I have possibly gotten the notion that IMHO was the right spot for it?
And for fuck’s sake, is reading comprehension really so low amongst the Moderators that after repeated explanations of the reasons why I wanted the thread in IMHO instead of GD you’re still not getting it?
From the infamous 9/30 Presidential Debate thread in IMHO:
Happy now, Otto? Consistency has been restored. Look, if you want to debate the debate, there is one forum to do that in. If you, for whatever reason, do not wish to venture into GD, then you’re just going to have to miss out. Sorry.
I’m not frigging omnipotent, Otto. Until it was revived today, most of that other thread you keep refering to was posted on the 1st and 2nd of the month, when I had a few personal items to attend to, and had dropped off the front page by the time I got back to the board. (BTW, thanx for posting in that thread this afternoon-you didn’t happen to do that just so that you could use it as an example, did you? Nah, that would be just as paranoid as whatever it is you’re complaining about here.)