# This Year's Model, why? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 4, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413 "2005-11-04T03:17:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/21 "2005-11-04T18:04:59Z")
> [@Misnomer](#): > > Irrelevant. Unfortunately, there are going to be threads that require some careful watching: it’s part of your job. Plus, the thread was only 16 posts long! If the number/pace of replies had picked up considerably or something, maybe then I could see a valid reason for preemptively closing the thread; keeping an eye on a thread that never had more than 6 posts in 24 hours hardly strikes me as “intensive.” Of course it’s relevant. Just because we’ve volunteered for the job doesn’t make what we do here our primary concern in life. We have jobs, families and other interests; there’s no need for us to spend a good portion of our on-line time watching one particular thread to make sure it doesn’t get out-of-hand. And the truth of the matter is is that some threads are in a position to be more troublesome than others–which is the decision that **This Year’s Model** made about the thread in question. ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/22 "2005-11-04T18:27:20Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > Of course it’s relevant. Just because we’ve volunteered for the job doesn’t make what we do here our primary concern in life. We have jobs, families and other interests; there’s no need for us to spend a good portion of our on-line time watching one particular thread to make sure it doesn’t get out-of-hand. You must have missed everything I wrote after the word “irrelevant” – like the part where I explained _why_ that particular defense was irrelevant in this particular case. Reasons like the thread was only 16 posts long, and there were never more than 6 posts in any 24-hour period. How, exactly, does that translate to me expecting the thread to be anyone’s “primary concern in life?” And how does a 16-post thread take up “a good portion” of anyone’s time? Look, I understand that mods have to make judgment calls all of the time, I know it’s not an easy job, and this is the first time I’ve ever seriously disagreed with someone’s decision. It’s just my opinion that **This Year’s Model** made a mistake, and I’m frustrated at the excuses that he (she?) is presenting. I think a simple “it was my call, tough shit if you don’t like it” – while still annoying and frustrating – would have been easier to swallow than the “reasons” we’ve been given. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/23 "2005-11-04T18:31:53Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > And the truth of the matter is is that some threads are in a position to be more troublesome than others–which is the decision that **This Year’s Model** made about the thread in question. The thread in question had one joke post that wasn’t on topic. It wasn’t even against the rules. TWM jumped on it and closed it within 6 min.'s. No warning, no friendly reminder, more importantly no reason like the ones given in this thread. Just a “Ick” which implies he just didn’t like that link. It was bad/lazy moderation IMO and as **Misnomer** said it’s not really the particular incident but the precedent that’s the problem thing. There are a lot of contentious possibly troublesome threads on this board. I think it’s bad form to just close them as soon as anything happens in them that the mod doesn’t like which is what looks like happened here. All the rest just seems to be excuses made up after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/24 "2005-11-04T19:06:19Z")
> [@Misnomer](#): > > You must have missed everything I wrote after the word “irrelevant” – like the part where I explained _why_ that particular defense was irrelevant in this particular case. Reasons like the thread was only 16 posts long, and there were never more than 6 posts in any 24-hour period. How, exactly, does that translate to me expecting the thread to be anyone’s “primary concern in life?” And how does a 16-post thread take up “a good portion” of anyone’s time? There was nothing missed; I just don’t agree with you. **This Year’s Model** had already stepped in to tell people to watch it with the links. Within 16 posts, a user had already posted a link that violated the “two-click” rule. In a thread dedicated to porn rentals, that a link such of that showed up despite the years-old “two-click” rule, and despite **This Year’s Model** ’s preemptive warning, it’s generally an inidication that the thread can/will get out of hand. It may have been relatively tame at the time of the closing, but that’s where the mod’s discretion comes into play; he/she has to decide whether the thread will attract other unwanted posts, and whether the thread is one with which it’s worth dealing. This isn’t new reasoning, nor does it set a precedent. Personally, I found the thread interesting (and were it not for this Pit thread, I probably wouldn’t have seen it), but I don’t disagree with the reasoning in closing it. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/25 "2005-11-04T19:22:15Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > Personally, I found the thread interesting (and were it not for this Pit thread, I probably wouldn’t have seen it), but I don’t disagree with the reasoning in closing it. Well, you must respect the unwritten code of the moderators I s’pose. Never go against the family! ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/26 "2005-11-04T19:46:39Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > There was nothing missed; I just don’t agree with you. My bad, then. Seemed like you took the word “irrelevant” out of context. I’m happy to go on disagreeing with you, though. 😉 > [@](#): > > **This Year’s Model** had already stepped in to tell people to watch it with the links. Yes, unneccesarily. **TYM** posted right after the OP, who specifically mentioned no links and the NSFW guideline. That irked me right off the bat (assuming that we’re going to be bad is treating us like children), and implying that it was some kind of deserved warning is neither far nor accurate. > [@](#): > > Within 16 posts, a user had already posted a link that violated the “two-click” rule. No, it did not. I quote from this very thread: > [@This Year's Model](#): > > The link was not the problem. The change of subject was the problem. > [@SkipMagic](#): > > It may have been relatively tame at the time of the closing, but that’s where the mod’s discretion comes into play; he/she has to decide whether the thread will attract other unwanted posts, and whether the thread is one with which it’s worth dealing. This isn’t new reasoning, nor does it set a precedent. Even the link in question was tame – it was a joke! And I disagree that no precendent is set: when **TYM** closed the thread it had nothing to do with any rules being violated, or because it had gotten out of hand. The entire reason the thread was closed was because of “ick” – because the mod didn’t like what they saw as the new subject, and they just couldn’t let the thread get to 17 or 18 replies to see if there was, indeed, any trouble brewing. While I’ll grant that I’ve only been around here for a year, I don’t remember ever seeing such a knee-jerk closing of an IMHO or MPSIMS thread based on a personal dislike of the subject matter. That’s what seems like kind of a dangerous precedent to me. ---
**Author:** ![betenoir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@betenoir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoir)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/27 "2005-11-04T20:44:32Z")
I just want to note that there wasn’t _any_ change of subject. There was a humourous aside that was _directly related to the OP_. The site linked is clearly a parody of Netflix and the like (note the dildo replacing the remote control) and was sex/porn related so even more relevent. Made perfect sense. So in your judgement TYM, do all humourous asides call for thread closing? (Or just the one’s the squick you out?) ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/28 "2005-11-04T21:11:24Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > Well, you must respect the unwritten code of the moderators I s’pose. Never go against the family! That’s a tiresome and ridiculous assertion, especially since I gave my reasons for why the thread should remain closed. As has been pointed out numerous times before, Mods don’t always agree on certain decisions; this just happened to be one of those times when I did agree. > [@Misnomer](#): > > Yes, unneccesarily. TYM posted right after the OP, who specifically mentioned no links and the NSFW guideline. That irked me right off the bat (assuming that we’re going to be bad is treating us like children), and implying that it was some kind of deserved warning is neither far nor accurate. Hmm… I think you might be taking that preemptive warning a little too personally. When you have as many posters as we do, and when you have as many guests who don’t always read the registration agreement closely (not to mention a fair number of high-count posters), preemptive warnings tend to save a lot of time. They’re not meant to blame anyone, they’re simply there to help reinforce board rules–just in case someone forgets what he’s not supposed to do. Preemptive warnings certainly aren’t meant to treat anyone like children, but experience has shown that a Moderator posting a reminder of the rules at the beginning of certain threads reduces the chance of someone breaking the rules. > [@Misnomer](#): > > No, it did not. I quote from this very thread: Yep, I missed that bullet. ('Course, were that thread in MPSIMS, I would have squashed that link. Dildos sites–jokes or not–tend to be considered inappropriate by most employers. In the workplace, that is–who knows what the boss does at home.) > [@Misnomer](#): > > Even the link in question was tame – it was a joke! And I disagree that no precendent is set: when TYM closed the thread it had nothing to do with any rules being violated, or because it had gotten out of hand. The entire reason the thread was closed was because of “ick” – because the mod didn’t like what they saw as the new subject, and they just couldn’t let the thread get to 17 or 18 replies to see if there was, indeed, any trouble brewing. While I’ll grant that I’ve only been around here for a year, I don’t remember ever seeing such a knee-jerk closing of an IMHO or MPSIMS thread based on a personal dislike of the subject matter. That’s what seems like kind of a dangerous precedent to me. I’m not sure why you say “entire reason” when there were many reasons given. You’ve even argued against those reasons. You may not agree with them, but it’s not like he didn’t explain himself. And nah, this isn’t a precedent. Plenty of threads have been closed because they pose potential problems. I know I’ve closed a few in MPSIMS and others have been closed throughout this board’s history. Some I agree with, others I don’t. But I’ve yet to see it become a problem or pattern. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/29 "2005-11-04T21:25:13Z")
Is there ANYONE on the moderator’s side on this one? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/30 "2005-11-04T21:36:37Z")
Yet another sad case of a poster not actually reading the entire thread before replying. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/31 "2005-11-04T21:45:23Z")
I read your post (about the two-click rule), but that doesn’t seem to be the real reason the thread was closed. Just an inspiration. ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/32 "2005-11-04T23:58:20Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > Hmm… I think you might be taking that preemptive warning a little too personally. Not at all. It irked me, but I didn’t say anything in the thread because it wasn’t a big enough deal. I only said something about it now because you brought it up. What irked me wasn’t the warning itself, but the fact that the OP had made mention of the very same rule. It was **chaoticbear** saying “I’m deliberately being careful with links and NSFW stuff” and then **TYM** posting immediately afterwards to say “watch the links.” > [@](#): > > I’m not sure why you say “entire reason” when there were many reasons given. I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear enough: I meant the entire reason that was given in the closed thread. > [@](#): > > And nah, this isn’t a precedent. Plenty of threads have been closed because they pose potential problems. I know I’ve closed a few in MPSIMS and others have been closed throughout this board’s history. Some I agree with, others I don’t. But I’ve yet to see it become a problem or pattern. Cool. I saw it a different way, so I exercised my Cecil-given right to complain. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![braggingwrites](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90db22/32.png) [@braggingwrites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braggingwrites)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/33 "2005-11-05T00:33:54Z")
IMHO, what’s telling is that **TYM** didn’t offer any sort of explanation save “ick” when the thread was closed, suddenly and without warning (and to call a pre-emptive link post a “warning” for thread closure is absurd). Now he’s coming up with barely rational excuses followed up with a nice aftershot of “I’ll do whatever the fuck I want” condescension. Come on, **TYM**. You might not reply to this post but the fact that the ONLY support you have on this one is another mod who only agrees with you for reasons you yourself disavowed in the other thread (i.e. that the link was a problem) means that you fucked up. We’d have a lot more respect for you if you would just admit it. Sure it’s embarassing, but show some character, sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Silver\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_Fire)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/34 "2005-11-05T00:55:49Z")
You know what’s funny? The thread in question was closed 6 minutes after the “offending post” was made, yet [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343249) remains almost an hour after our beloved guest calls a member a “greasy fat retard”, and more than 20 minutes after she calls the entire thread “fatass faggots”, without so much as a **warning**. Haha! I sure am glad the mods are cleaning this place up, though! ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/35 "2005-11-05T01:27:45Z")
Warned and closed now, **Silver Fire**. Thanks for the link to an amusing little thread, though. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Silver\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_Fire)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/36 "2005-11-05T03:15:26Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Warned and closed now, **Silver Fire**. Thanks for the link to an amusing little thread, though. A mere 32 minutes later. Not bad. ---
**Author:** ![chaoticbear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@chaoticbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaoticbear)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/37 "2005-11-05T03:59:01Z")
You know, the subject of a dildo rental is obviously NSFW, although the “offending” website doesn’t really show anything horribly NSFW. However, if you open up a thread that DISCUSSES PORN and has links to PORN WEBSITES, aren’t you going to assume that there’s a chance that some of it might be NSFW? Just maybe? You know, **This Year’s Model** , I hope that you will either come in here and explain yourself more fully, or that you are only a moderator for **This Year** and then we won’t have to worry about you any more. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/38 "2005-11-05T04:10:35Z")
> [@chaoticbear](#): > > You know, **This Year’s Model** , I hope that you will either come in here and explain yourself more fully, or that you are only a moderator for **This Year** and then we won’t have to worry about you any more. I have explained my reasons. The thread will remain closed. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/39 "2005-11-05T04:16:14Z")
and you will remain wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413/40 "2005-11-05T04:31:26Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > I have explained my reasons. > > The thread will remain closed. I think part of the capacity to act as a functioning member of society is the ability to examine your judgments, compare them to others, and seriously consider the possibility that you are wrong when indeed everyone else disagrees (and has good reasoning behind their judgments.) An inability to admit that you’re wrong indicates a very poor potential as a moderator here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-years-model-why/329413.md?page=3)