How long will the thinly veiled begging for money be allowed to continue? No comment about this recurring theme is allowed in the relevent thread? Might as well let CitizenPained have a full blown solicitation thread at this point. Already those that are buying into the tales of drama and woe are sending cards and packages. At least if it is up front and confined to one thread we would all be a little wiser.
I’d call it “strange”, myself. “Odd”, even.
The matter is under discussion by the mods.
Actually Ellen Cherry’s note is spot on.
As Ellen pointed out, accusations against other posters is not appropriate for IMHO. It’s also not appropriate for ATMB.
If you have a problem with what someone says here, there’s a place for that. Pit them.
Citizen Pained has made allusions to difficulties and etc. (and apparently people have sent her things) and that’s not against the rules.
Generally speaking Dopers are very kindhearted people and can be sympathetic and supportive. That’s not against the rules and it’s not a bad thing.
Well, thank God we finally settled the question of whether sympathy is a bad thing.
That is what you were asking, isn’t it Hbns?
I think what you are interpreting as “thinly veiled begging for money,” other people are just interpreting as a poster talking about how she is going through a hard time. People are allowed to respond to that as they choose.
An MPSIMS thread isn’t the place to insinuate that a poster is lying or inappropriately begging for money and sympathy, no. There is already an active Pitting of CitizenPained where all of that stuff, and more, is being discussed. If you think there is a moderation issue, tell the mods.
Can you clarify or explain this rule a little? In some threads, there is a need to question the details of what someone has posted in order to respond appropriately to the advice solicited or whatever. Is that level of questioning inappropriate for MPSIMS, or just outright “I think you’re lying”?
CitizenPained has already stated that she will not participate in the Pit thread, and that is certainly her prerogative. It does, however, make it difficult to have any continuity if posters who are participating in a non-Pit thread but also questioning facts and details have to go to the Pit, where their questions will remain unanswered by a non-participatory pittee.
Thank you Twickster.
TubaDiva & Marley23, let us put aside for a moment what particular issues of truthfulness I have with the OP.
Rather my issue is with the blanket statement that
So, blatant lies in any thread can only be addressed through a pit thread? That is what I find idiotic.
You can generally address the truthfulness of a factual claim made by an OP. The honesty of an OP, however, is Pit fodder and debating it means either calling a poster a liar outside of the Pit or threadshitting.
That’s appropriate and necessary. Asking for details is not the same as suggesting that someone is making up a story for money or sympathy.
That’s life. Sometimes these things are not resolved to everybody’s satisfaction- but that doesn’t mean people can take a Pitting to another forum to try to get a response.
I remind you again that it’s evident not everyone thinks the OP is blatantly lying. Great Debates is the only forum with an actual prohibition on calling someone a liar or saying he/she is lying, but that mods in any forum can tamp down those kinds of accusations to stop a trainwreck. I haven’t been following all of CitizenPained’s threads recently because I don’t mod MPSIMS and IMHO, so I’ll leave it to Ellen Cherry to comment further.
Got it. As usual the rules ebb and flow to suit the moment.
Marley23 and others seem to be implying that I only read the statement as applying to this particular OP in that particular thread.
I took it as the blanket statement that it appears to be. My bad I guess.
My reasoning behind the mod note was threefold: 1) You’re not allowed to say nasty things to people; 2) if you want to say nasty things about people you have to do it in the pit and 3) no one is allowed to troll.
In regard to the “nasty things” section, here is what I saw in the thread:
In response to “there’s a risk they’ll take my kid.”
A casual perusal of the pit thread yields a great abundance of people who’ve made it clear they think she’s making a lot of her story up. That’s what you can do it the Pit — call people liars, tell them that they’re fill-in-the-blank nasty name, etc. The rules are different for IMHO. I have no problem with people questioning what she says, as long as they do it in non-insulting ways. “Wait, what? I thought you said X and now you’re saying Y?” That’s the way to approach it. Not by offering to fund drug overdoses or hope that someone’s child gets taken away.
To reiterate what I said in the thread: believe or disbelieve what you read on the Internet; that is your prerogative. I can’t track down someone and find out if every thing they’ve said is true, just to satisfy some people’s outrage. Be mindful that there are people who have been looking at the same posts the naysayers are looking at and seeing someone in trouble, someone they’d like to offer advice and guidance. You, the disbelieving ones, are not called upon to set them straight. They’re adults; they too can believe as they wish.
THAT SAID — Please note #3 above: No one is allowed to troll. Sympathy trolling, outright lying to gain said sympathy or (as has been accused) to get money is not allowed either.
It’s a hard situation to manage. But I signed on to uphold the rules and keep the peace, and that’s what I’m trying to do here.
I am not a moderator, nor an administrator, and as such it’s really not my place to say this, but I’ll say it anyway:
While there are no specific rules against sending cards/packages to other members, or even meeting each other in person, the Straight Dope, the Chicago Reader, and all applicable and associated organizations in no way, shape, or form condone or encourage such activities.
I’m also not a lawyer, so I’m sure someone with more smarts than I will state this in a way that makes it all legal and official-like.
There’s this, in the Registration Agreement:
Yeah, I knew about that, Marley. But I’ve seen disclaimers like that in Dopefest threads, and thought it just needed repeating.
Mea Culpa, and all that.
I took that one particular sentence much too literally. It is clear to me now that it was intended to be taken in context to that particular thread. Thanks for taking the time to provide a more in depth explanation.
I don’t think that’s what’s happening. This is about the epistemological distinction between discussions of propositional value versus discussions of sincerity, and which fora they belong to. They’re making the same distinction that they’ve always made.
You’re welcome!
[nitpick]ontological distinction[/nitpick]
No, I didn’t mean that. If we want to give advice to someone in IMHO, we must assume that at least some aspects of what they say about their circumstances are true–otherwise, there’s no point, and that’s why IMHO is not the place to question the veracity of the poster himself (and say that he’s just trolling), and imply that any kind of feedback at all is waste of time. It’s about the organization of dialog on the board, not the “purpose” of posting.