# The Etiquette of the Padlock **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 24, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993 "2009-10-24T19:18:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/21 "2009-10-25T22:36:08Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > Our expectation is that people stand behind the posts they make – there is the anonymity of your username, of course, but we expect that username to be attached to any posts you make here. If someone else is posting something you want to say, you are posting under a false name. So, a this is a sock like the guy that posts stuff one dislikes is a troll. Local definitions and descriptivism. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/22 "2009-10-25T23:03:07Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > If someone else is posting something you want to say, you are posting under a false name. The word you are looking for is “proxy”. ---
**Author:** ![Xploder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/a183cd/32.png) [@Xploder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xploder)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/23 "2009-10-25T23:45:44Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > Our expectation is that people stand behind the posts they make – there is the anonymity of your username, of course, but we expect that username to be attached to any posts you make here. If someone else is posting something you want to say, you are posting under a false name. By that note, every one on this board is a sock. Every time that someone quotes another user then they are guilty of socking by proxy. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/24 "2009-10-25T23:48:15Z")
Not when the quotes are attributed. ---
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/25 "2009-10-25T23:59:29Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > Not when the quotes are attributed. Please stop. Every reply makes it worse and worse. We understand that you gave up the rights to free speech when you got the title, but really, if you stop typing you can salvage some respect. ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/26 "2009-10-26T00:02:54Z")
Thing is, the use of socks is an intention to mislead the audience. If someone is posting by proxy in a thread dedicated to posting by proxy, it’s a different situation. ---
**Author:** ![akennett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@akennett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akennett)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/27 "2009-10-26T00:42:03Z")
Regardless of the outcome of this sock vs. proxy discussion, doesn’t this just prove the contention of those questioning the thread closure that the thread in question was, in fact, not a dead horse? ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/28 "2009-10-26T00:51:30Z")
The whole point of many of our rules is to build a community. Under whatever screen name you choose, you are responsible for what you say, and others can respond to it. That builds up mutual respect and trust, one hopes. Posting under a sock-name, posting by proxy, all that is contrary to the idea of saying what you mean and standing for what you say. Having some third party be the “intermediary” and post that “Someone on the Message Boards is having an affair with their mother-in-law” (or whatever) is a violation of the basic notion of trust. And, of course, you poor dupes who tell this Father Confessor all your deep secrets that you don’t want published on the boards: what do you do when that person violates your trust, and says, “Aha, it was So-and-So who’s having an affair with his mother-in-law!” You scream bloody murder about being outed, and the mods are helpless to do anything about it. The mods took a vote on this, and many of us had different reasons behind it, but everyone (pretty much) said “no.” We foresaw nothing but problems and the potential for really, really nastiness. The fact that there is another board where you can do this if you wish, means that we don’t need to provide that service. Just as there are other boards where you can insult other posters to your heart’s content; we don’t need to allow it here. ---
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/29 "2009-10-26T01:18:46Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > The whole point of many of our rules is to build a community. Under whatever screen name you choose, you are responsible for what you say, and others can respond to it. That builds up mutual respect and trust, one hopes. Posting under a sock-name, posting by proxy, all that is contrary to the idea of saying what you mean and standing for what you say. > > Having some third party be the “intermediary” and post that “Someone on the Message Boards is having an affair with their mother-in-law” (or whatever) is a violation of the basic notion of trust. And, of course, you poor dupes who tell this Father Confessor all your deep secrets that you don’t want published on the boards: what do you do when that person violates your trust, and says, “Aha, it was So-and-So who’s having an affair with his mother-in-law!” You scream bloody murder about being outed, and the mods are helpless to do anything about it. > > The mods took a vote on this, and many of us had different reasons behind it, but everyone (pretty much) said “no.” We foresaw nothing but problems and the potential for really, really nastiness. The fact that there is another board where you can do this if you wish, means that we don’t need to provide that service. Just as there are other boards where you can insult other posters to your heart’s content; we don’t need to allow it here. Interesting disclaimer, but in the end, it is all bullshit. Sorry you got sucked down into the shit vortex, but sadly, you are all the emperor, and he has no clothes. You voted, really? Why do you keep insulting those who want to participate here? Look, the response we got were way to fast for a vote, and even so, you voted that something not prohibited was indeed prohibited? Dude, your mother would wash your mouth out with soap and your daddy would kick you ass. This is really diminishing you all. Please see that. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/30 "2009-10-26T02:08:35Z")
I don’t get the uproar. The mods have always had the discretion of what is allowed to be posted here. The fact that it had to be asked indicates that it was clear that such a thing might not be allowed. (I actually find it kinda weird that it was asked ATMB instead of by the SOP of emailing a mod, but that’s now irrelevant.) And locking a thread doesn’t really do anything but send a message. It is obvious that you can always open up another thread in ATMB if you disagree with the decision. So it’s not like anyone actually stopped you from discussing the decision. If anything, you could say that the original thread had gone off topic, as the OP had gotten his answer. In every other forum on the board, you have to open a new thread in ATMB to discuss moderating decisions. I see no reason ATMB should be different. I do think that the mods could stand to become more aware of the implications of what they say, but most seem to have taken the policy that people are going to find something wrong with what they’re going to say, so I they as well not bother going too deep. **twickster** is one of the nicest mods on here, IMHO. She’s just very proactive. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/31 "2009-10-26T02:36:25Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t get the uproar. The mods have always had the discretion of what is allowed to be posted here. That discretion was previously generally exercised within the framework of the rules, however too often recently it has been transparently obvious that decisions are made and then the rules are either torturously retconned to fit the situation, or ignored altogther. When it was asked whether or not a proxy thread would be permissible, **Marley** ’s response, which bordered on self-parody, was that it wasn’t against any actual rules, but still wouldn’t be allowed. Moderator discretion has become rule by whim, _fiat_ papered over with a thin veneer of legality: if it was announced that this board was administered by official caprice, it would at least have the virtue of honesty. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/32 "2009-10-26T14:39:15Z")
If anyone wants my input: SDMB should be allowed to enforce whatever rules they like, although I don’t think it’s fair to characterise this idea as “stupid” I’m not interested in fighting _that_ battle. Since it’s being allowed at giraffe boards, and the latter website is free, why not just sign up for that if you want to participate? In fact you don’t even need to sign up there; there are instructions there on how to get the confessions to me by email. Link: [The anonymous confessions thread - The Giraffe Boards](http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=6699) ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/33 "2009-10-26T15:04:21Z")
> [@brownie55](#): > > Interesting disclaimer, but in the end, it is all bullshit. Sorry you got sucked down into the shit vortex, but sadly, you are all the emperor, and he has no clothes. You voted, really? Why do you keep insulting those who want to participate here? > > Look, the response we got were way to fast for a vote, and even so, you voted that something not prohibited was indeed prohibited? Dude, your mother would wash your mouth out with soap and your daddy would kick you ass. This is really diminishing you all. Please see that. I didn’t say that every single mod voted, nor that we waited for absentee ballots. The question was posed to the mods, and the first batch of responses were all unanimous (and fairly quick, since people were online). Why do you keep thinking that everything the mods say or do is insulting? Would you rather we NOT bother to explain at all, and just issued edicts? We are certainly open to discussion and to reconsideration, but so far haven’t heard any arguments that make us reconsider. Snarky comments and recreational outrage such as what you’re saying don’t cause us to change our minds; to the contrary, they rather convince us that logic and reason are on our side. You’re the one using the term “prohibited.” And be aware: there are lots of threads that we close that the rules don’t explicitly prohibit. Frinstance, they don’t explicitly prohibit count-padding threads: “Let’s all post letters of the alphabet,I’ll start: A” was actually a thread at one point, that we closed because it served no useful purpose except to pad post-counts. The rules also don’t explicitly define “personal insult.” **Marley** mentioned in the other thread that sharing Social Security numbers isn’t explicitly prohibited by the rules, but would be disallowed. We’re not trying to write a legal system, and it si NOT the case that anything not prohibited is permitted. Summing up: A request was made that we thought would be far more likely to lead to disaster than to serve any useful purpose, so we denied it. I still am only hearing people saying that they dislike our reasoning, but I haven’t heard anyone argue positively that allowing that request would serve any useful purpose. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/34 "2009-10-26T17:05:13Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > And be aware: there are lots of threads that we close that the rules don’t explicitly prohibit. Frinstance, they don’t explicitly prohibit count-padding threads: Actually, they do. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9505194&postcount=4](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9505194&postcount=4) ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/35 "2009-10-26T17:28:21Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Summing up: A request was made that we thought would be far more likely to lead to disaster than to serve any useful purpose, so we denied it. I still am only hearing people saying that they dislike our reasoning, but I haven’t heard anyone argue positively that allowing that request would serve any useful purpose. I completely agree with your guys’ decision not to allow an anon confession thread – even if you added a caveat that confessions could not in any way discuss other posters (which would be an absolute necessity in a non-Pit thread), it would still be ridiculously easy to troll in (e.g. “I confess that I hate fat, SUV driving cat owners.”) I think most people get that. But I think that **Zoe** ’s point is also valid – quickly locking threads discussing rules or new ideas for the board gives the impression that discourse between posters and staff is a bit unwelcome. I’m sure this is unintentional – you’ve all gone round and round on the mod loop, so for you the issue has been worked out as much as it needs to be, but for posters who aren’t privy to that discussion it feels abrupt. Now that all policy and rules discussion is in ATMB, you all might consider defaulting to leaving ATMB threads open unless there’s an immediate reason to close them. I also wondered if the direct link to GB partly motivated the closure decision – I can fully appreciate you guys not wanting a thread to turn into a discussion of something off-board (which is why I made my original offer via PM instead of in the thread, to avoid any appearance of advertising), but that could probably be mitigated by a simple mod note asking further discussion to be confined to SDMB stuff only. It does make things a bit trickier, though, I admit. ---
**Author:** ![Harmonious\_Discord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/74df32/32.png) [@Harmonious\_Discord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harmonious_Discord)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/36 "2009-10-26T17:29:26Z")
I always think of the mods like this. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. Damned for being quick. Damned if you wait. Damned if you change your mind. Damned if you express an opinion when asked. Damned if you don’t express an opinion when asked. Damned if you lock a thread. Damned if you unlock the thread. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/37 "2009-10-26T17:33:30Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > But I think that **Zoe** ’s point is also valid – quickly locking threads discussing rules or new ideas for the board gives the impression that discourse between posters and staff is a bit unwelcome. Yes, in retrospect, my decision to lock that particular thread showed poor judgment. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/38 "2009-10-26T17:43:51Z")
> [@Harmonious\_Discord](#): > > I always think of the mods like this. > > Damned if you do. > Damned if you don’t. That’s what makes it such a rewarding journey of self-discovery and personal growth! ---
**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:** [October 26, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/39 "2009-10-26T17:55:20Z")
:dubious: Is _that_ what you’re calling it? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/40 "2009-10-26T18:02:05Z")
> [@Harmonious\_Discord](#): > > I always think of the mods like this. > > Damned if you do. > Damned if you don’t. > Damned for being quick. > Damned if you wait. > Damned if you change your mind. > Damned if you express an opinion when asked. > Damned if you don’t express an opinion when asked. > Damned if you lock a thread. > Damned if you unlock the thread. > > 🙂 I find the term [zugzwang](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang) to be particularly appropriate: > [@](#): > > The term zugzwang is frequently used in chess. A player whose turn it is to move who has no move that does not worsen their position is said to be in zugzwang (Soltis 2003a:78). Thus every move would make his position worse, and he would be better off if he could pass and not move. The difference being, when moderating not making a move at all can also make one’s position worse.😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993.md?page=3)