# To Read or not to Read, that is the question; GoT **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 15, 2015, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771 "2015-04-15T20:20:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/41 "2015-04-18T15:59:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Particularly annoying were the "Well, I have read the books, and I can tell you- dont get too attached to that character! " type of posts.:rolleyes: That’s not only being a spoiler, that’s being a jerk. So, some posters over-reacted. Jerks will bring out some knee _jerk_ reactions, of course!😛 You know, it’s interesting that you say that, because I was skimming over some old threads and found this: From [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14928395&postcount=32): > [@DrDeth](#): > > But “don’t get too attached to him _wink_" is a fucking SPOILER?!? In a thread about a GRR Martin product? I mean, that’s just crazy. That line can be appended to every single Martin character, including those who as of the newest book are alive and kicking. It’s about as spoilerific as “There’s a sword used in the next episode”. So the very thing you declare here as jerkish behavior is almost verbatim what you declared in a previous thread to be crazy to consider jerkish behavior. Which is it? > [@](#): > > And you are right I\* have\* brought this up maybe a little too much. :smack: Can you admit you got a leetle bit carried away a couple times in your reactions? > > But I never posted any sort of spoiler in your threads, Senor. My “behavior” has been to complain about the special rules- not post spoilers in your threads. So, _my_ behavior had nothing to do with the “hard rules”. In fact, I very rarely posted in your threads. Here’s what you’ve never gotten. You repeat over and over again that these threads are a special concession to me, personally, as one person, to be allowed special protection against Game of Thrones spoilers (because, naturally, I’m illiterate and resent books). But you miss the point. I’m not asking for special treatment for myself. I’m just the one that took the effort to organize an effort to improve the quality of those threads. I did a public service. I was proactive in trying to come up with methods to improve the discussion for both the show and for book discussion about the show. My motivation was never “how do I get the mods to create a special rule so I’m protected from knowing books exist”, but rather “how do we create useful discussions out of the clusterfucks that these threads have been so far?” You’ve made this about me over and over again - in multiple threads - as if I personally am asking for special rules for myself. But that wasn’t my intent. I was being proactive in trying to create a better place for discussions on this board - for book readers and non-book readers. Someone else could’ve stepped up besides me, but I tend to take the initiative and put forth the effort to get things done. > [@](#): > > And while I agree and admit that bringing this up once a year was perhaps a little tedious- how many times did you bring up your Game Room complaints? 😛 I don’t see how these are analogous at all. In one case, I was trying to save the game room from death on an issue that everyone could plainly see would benefit the boards, but management was dragging their butts on. In the other case, you are trying to actively squash discussion that you feel that caters to people who are beneath you, because you are such an amazing person that you read a series of fantasy novels. > [@](#): > > So **Senor la tetera** may I introduce myself- \*\*Doctor la olla \*\*. 😛 > > **Can we call a truce now?** > > I promise not to post any sort of spoilers in your no-spoiler threads, nor try to hijack them with mentions of how the book differs, etc from the HBO show. But if someone casually mentions the "b-word’ can we ask you to not over-react? Fair? It’s not about a truce between you and I. The problem is that we’ve tried soft rules about spoilers and being a jerk. And with ambiguous, soft rules, people either make bad judgments about what other people consider spoilers, or they deliberately try to skirt the lines. There are certain posters who are very angry at the very idea that we have a non-book thread. And they show their displeasure by trying to ruin what they can within the rules. See [these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16268552#post16268552) [posts](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16268565&postcount=42) from your failed pit thread as evidence that I’m not the only one to notice this. You, yourself, in the OP in this very thread, say that saying “don’t get too attached to that character _wink_” is clearly jerkish behavior. And yet in a previous thread, when someone said that was jerkish behavior, you called that crazy. But we’re supposed to let everything be a free for all and the poster determine what’s jerkish behavior? There are discussions in which comparisons between the books and the show are open and encouraged. No one is stifling your ability to compare the show to the books. But the show is its own artistic entity that stands separate from the books. Someone could very reasonably enjoy the show without even knowing they’re based on books. And so we can have a discussion about the show as its own entity. Without people deciding for themselves what’s a spoiler and what isn’t, and then having endless fights about that person’s definition of a spoiler. The hard “the books don’t exist” rule have clearly been successful. Those threads, for 3 years now, have been almost entirely on track, civil, and productive discussions. The rule is working. Many people are thankful for the rule, which you ignore when you try to assert that it’s a special rule just for me personally. There is no need to mention the books in a thread specifically geared towards evaluating the show as its own artistic endeavor. Allowing such would create situations in which one writer didn’t think something was a spoiler and some readers did. Which would ensue in a fight over what constitutes a spoiler, and we’re back to the season 1 clusterfuck. The current system is working. No one is being stopped from discussing what they want - and there are separate threads with separate rules. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/42 "2015-04-18T18:21:55Z")
> [@](#): > > The current system is working. No one is being stopped from discussing what they want - and there are separate threads with separate rules. The victors always get to write history. ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/43 "2015-04-18T18:44:09Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > The victors always get to write history. When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/44 "2015-04-18T18:59:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > … > **Can we call a truce now?** > > I promise not to post any sort of spoilers in your no-spoiler threads, nor try to hijack them with mentions of how the book differs, etc from the HBO show… What an interesting thread. I have a question: Did you just make a generous offer to follow the rules? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/45 "2015-04-18T19:39:14Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > You know, it’s interesting that you say that, because I was skimming over some old threads and found this: > > From [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14928395&postcount=32): > > So the very thing you declare here as jerkish behavior is almost verbatim what you declared in a previous thread to be crazy to consider jerkish behavior. Which is it? > > I did a public service. > > I don’t see how these are analogous at all. In one case, I was trying to save the game room from death on an issue that everyone could plainly see would benefit the boards, but management was dragging their butts on. In the other case, you are trying to actively squash discussion that you feel that caters to people who are beneath you, because you are such an amazing person that you read a series of fantasy novels. > > You, yourself, in the OP in this very thread, say that saying “don’t get too attached to that character _wink_” is clearly jerkish behavior. And yet in a previous thread, when someone said that was jerkish behavior, you called that crazy. But we’re supposed to let everything be a free for all and the poster determine what’s jerkish behavior? > > The hard “the books don’t exist” rule have clearly been successful. Those threads, for 3 years now, have been almost entirely on track, civil, and productive discussions. The rule is working. Yep. I agree, that in a thread **here in ATMB** , I discussed hypothetically that such behavior is not a spoiler. But you, of course, take it out of context . However, I agree that THREE YEARS AGO, I had a somewhat different position that I have now. That’s because \*in the spirit of compromise \*I have ameliorated my original hard-line position. Note I accepted \*\*Idle Thoughts \*\*well thought out and reasonable compromise posted here, even tho it gets you most of what you want. You- on the other hand, refuse to compromise, insist on getting your own way, and refuse to accept the new rules. (if they can be called that, they are mostly just a return to the rules we have had for a decade). I offer the olive branch of truce- you strike it out of my hand and petulantly refuse any compromise at all. It’s your way or the highway. You consider what you are doing, in refusing any compromise, in refusing to accept the new rules:" _a public service."_:dubious::rolleyes: And your old “ **SenorBeef** ’s special rules way” is \*not _working. Witness the constant Junior modding and angry profanity-laced hijacks_ of your own threads whenever anyone does anything **YOU** consider “against the rules”. Note- **YOU** are doing this. Not the Mods. If someone posts a spoiler or whatever- you are supposed to report it to the staff, not moderate your thread yourself. That’s called “Junior modding”. - by one “ **SenorBeef** ” Sure, once a year I have asked that the rules go back to what we have had for a decade, that there be no special rules just for **SenorBeef.** Irritating, no doubt, but it’s not against the rules. Junior modding is. And when you got your special way in the GoT thread, you embarked on a campaign to bully the staff here into giving you what YOU wanted in the Game Room. Even after you were told to “drop it, they were working on it”. Honestly, I dont care about those games, and I am sure 99% of the posters here didnt care either. But it’s fine with me they split off- it’s your tactics to get your way I disagree with. So, **I** accept **Idle Thoughts** post here, in the spirit of compromise. I see his point, I agree, and I am glad it’s over with. ---
**Author:** ![LawMonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@LawMonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LawMonkey)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/46 "2015-04-18T19:59:53Z")
Still gotta get caught up this weekend, as I was out of town and missed the premiere, but I’ve gotta say–if this thread is anything to go on, the episode threads this season should be “Fun”. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/47 "2015-04-18T20:06:34Z")
> [@LawMonkey](#): > > Still gotta get caught up this weekend, as I was out of town and missed the premiere, but I’ve gotta say–if this thread is anything to go on, the episode threads this season should be “Fun”. Thank you for that note of well needed levity! 😃 ---
**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:** [April 18, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/48 "2015-04-18T20:49:41Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > What an interesting thread. I have a question: Did you just make a generous offer to follow the rules? He said he would follow the rules from the beginning of this thread. But too many people think it’s okay to comment without reading what was said. Too many people want to go by what he’s said in the past without once checking if it was relevant to this thread. They also ignored that **Idle Thoughts** essentially said that the rules for the GoT threads are now the same as other threads. If that’s something that they think is a bad idea, attacking **DrDeth** won’t help. I know something about people reading what they want to see in your posts rather than what you actually said. It’s extremely frustrating, encouraging ignorance. For someone like me who never actually read the threads, it’s making me doubt everyone else. If they can’t get right what he’s saying in this thread, how do I know their characterizations of what he did before are accurate? It’s not like people linked examples. At worst it looks like DrDeth thought he was following the rules but failed, and he got attacked in-thread rather than just being reported as should have happened. EDIT: And I don’t care if the rules go back to being special for GOT, pretending the books literally don’t exist. But now I’m more inclinded to believe **DrDeth** ’s claim that **SenorBeef** were junior moderating instead of reporting the rule violation. ---
**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:** [April 18, 2015, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/49 "2015-04-18T20:55:04Z")
That’s SeniorBeef and others were junior moderating. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/50 "2015-04-18T21:43:58Z")
Can someone explain, in 5 sentences or less, what this thread is about? ---
**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:** [April 18, 2015, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/51 "2015-04-18T22:31:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can someone explain, in 5 sentences or less, what this thread is about? DrDeth took a really long time to ask “Do the GOT rules still apply since the sticky is gone?” **Idle Thoughts** gave a thoughtful reply that seems to mean “no, but still the rules are basically the same. Keep book stuff out of the show threads.” DrDeth thanked him and said he would follow the rules. Then a bunch of people got upset about what he’s said before, and DrDeth didn’t help by bringing some of it back up. ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/52 "2015-04-18T22:48:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can someone explain, in 5 sentences or less, what this thread is about? What, and lose all the nuance??! ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/53 "2015-04-18T23:22:30Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > He said he would follow the rules from the beginning of this thread. But too many people think it’s okay to comment without reading what was said. Too many people want to go by what he’s said in the past without once checking if it was relevant to this thread. Nonsense. Can I safely assume that since you don’t read the threads, you haven’t followed along (or at least, all that closely) to the DrDeth Saga that has raged for the last 3 years in ATMB? Because while DrDeth certainly did say: > [@DrDeth](#): > > I notice the Sticky about the “Rules” for GoT threads is gone, but that doesnt mean we should jump in with book mentions or especially spoilers- since spoilers are still against the rules, and in general, one should try to be polite and go by the\* guidelines\* that the OP has set forth. he unfortunately has developed a reputation of holding these threads’ stated guidelines in such disregard, that I will guarantee that he will attempt to skirt as close as he possibly can to overstepping them. He will also fail, because what he lacks in cooperation, he makes up for in dogged determination. > [@](#): > > They also ignored that **Idle Thoughts** essentially said that the rules for the GoT threads are now the same as other threads. If that’s something that they think is a bad idea, attacking **DrDeth** won’t help. Let me highlight what I think you might have missed. > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > If the thread is clear (in the title or OP) about what is wanted in it and what is not, then posting things contrary to that can be seen as jerkish and thus, why the moderation comes down on it when it happens. I’m reading that as “there’s no need for special GoT rules - disrespecting an OP’s thread guidelines is jerkish behavior, and subject to moderation.” It is my opinion, based on his significant posting history on this matter, that DrDeth will attempt to test this. In the very least, he’ll find himself in the middle of yet another hijack in a GoT thread that would have been prevented with a clearer statement from moderation supporting SenorBeef’s efforts to minimize both tiresome hijacks as well as entirely predictable ATMB threads on the matter. In summary no, we didn’t ignore DrDeth’s nor Idle Thoughts’ statements - your armchair psychiatrist attempts withstanding - we simply applied a small amount of common sense to a vast history of past behavior to arrive at a fairly simple conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/54 "2015-04-18T23:28:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can someone explain, in 5 sentences or less, what this thread is about? DrDeth has a grudge he can’t get over. SenorBeef points out why his GoT threads avoid hijacks. DrDeth thrashes wildly about to prove how over all this he is. SenorBeef points out some awesome retro-hypocricy on DD’s part. BigT tilts at windmills. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/55 "2015-04-19T01:06:49Z")
> [@Emiliana](#): > > When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground. Which is precisely why I stopped playing the Game of Thrones on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/56 "2015-04-19T06:50:46Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > DrDeth took a really long time to ask “Do the GOT rules still apply since the sticky is gone?” **Idle Thoughts** gave a thoughtful reply that seems to mean “no, but still the rules are basically the same. Keep book stuff out of the show threads.” DrDeth thanked him and said he would follow the rules. Then a bunch of people got upset about what he’s said before, and DrDeth didn’t help by bringing some of it back up. I think you’re about right, and as for that last yeah, _mea culpa._:smack: ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/57 "2015-04-19T10:00:37Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > I’m reading that as “there’s no need for special GoT rules - disrespecting an OP’s thread guidelines is jerkish behavior, and subject to moderation.” It is my opinion, based on his significant posting history on this matter, that DrDeth will attempt to test this. In the very least, he’ll find himself in the middle of yet another hijack in a GoT thread that would have been prevented with a clearer statement from moderation supporting SenorBeef’s efforts to minimize both tiresome hijacks as well as entirely predictable ATMB threads on the matter. > > In summary no, we didn’t ignore DrDeth’s nor Idle Thoughts’ statements - your armchair psychiatrist attempts withstanding - we simply applied a small amount of common sense to a vast history of past behavior to arrive at a fairly simple conclusion. Here’s a potential outcome that concerns me. We had a hard fought and contentious fight over the GoT threads that eventually resulted in the current system. We had someone to moderate it who was part of those fights and knows the history, as well as being familiar with the show and books and could tackle the issue in an informed way when actually moderating those threads. The rules we came up with ended up keeping the peace and creating productive discussions for a few years now. But there are people who have an axe to grind on this issue. Still, years after they were resolved successfully. People who will try to push the limits of the rules. When we had hard, explicit rules and informed moderation of those rules, it pretty much shut down that sort of hijacking/threadshitting. To DrDeth’s credit, he seems to have accepted the rules and hasn’t tried to push the edge from within the threads themselves for a long time. But if we lose those hard-fought rules and informed moderation (and I’m not saying Idle Thoughts or anyone else will do a poor job in this case - it’s just that it’s a contentious issue with a history that also requires some book/show knowledge to moderate), then I fear we’ll open ourselves to more threadshitting-within-the-rules sort of stuff because there are ambiguities in the rules. As an example, if the notion we have now is “old GoT rules we hashed out are no longer in effect, just obey the wishes of the OP”, then maybe one of them will beat me by a few hours, or a few days, to create the weekly episode thread. And then they’ll say “Okay, OP here, rules are off! Ha!” - and then rather than have our “here are the rules for GoT threads we’ve hashed out after a lot of arguing and problems”, we’ll have “see! I’m the OP now! I set the rules!” chaos for whoever starts the threads first. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/58 "2015-04-19T11:29:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can someone explain, in 5 sentences or less, what this thread is about? That would be the Cliff Notes version, which is a book, which apparently, by definition, does not exist. So, no. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/59 "2015-04-19T13:27:41Z")
In the book version of this thread, does anything ever get resolved? ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771/60 "2015-04-19T13:37:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In the book version of this thread, does anything ever get resolved? You clearly aren’t a Game of Thrones fan because you’re assuming the book version will be finished. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-read-or-not-to-read-that-is-the-question-got/717771.md?page=4)