tomndebb, get in or get out

+1
intention, by the way, it’s not Latin, it’s French. :wink:

The funny thing is when I saw the thread was closed, I thought, Juh? Then I read the thread closing post and my next thought was, Well then tell the derailers to knock it off. Then I read this thread and thought, Oh, I guess that would have been a poor option because… it wouldn’t have worked?

Once again, I ask: *what *uncontested opinion? I don’t see it in that thread. I would agree with you, on principle, but there is nothing there.

You’re not the only one, but you’re one of only a few. I can’t get anybody to explain to me what the problem is. I mean, yes I know you think he posts his opinions, and then closes the thread. But when? Where? Specifically.

Once again, I ask: what uncontested opinion? I don’t see it in that thread. I would agree with you, on principle, but there is nothing there.
[/QUOTE]

The uncontested opinion where he posted, and then immediately (15 mins) closed the thread.

Specifically, at the end of the thread that I referred to in the OP. What am I missing here?

Intention, some people have drank so much of the “everything is beautiful in it’s own way” kool-aid that they don’t think “religion has nothing to do with it” is an opinion. It’s simply what all sensible and enlightened people think. Come on! Get on the trolley!

@ Intention

Well, now, wait a minute. The way you’re expressing your complaint is different from what other people are saying, and is the reason I asked where did Tom express his opinion in his closing. It is, as you say, NOT in his closing remarks, but in remarks he made about 15 minutes before closing. The remark he made, incidentally, was critical of the Christian church.

But I think it’s wrong to fault him with trying to get the thread back on track (the track of honor killings) and then fault him for closing the thread when its participants were obviously oblivious to the topic. In your listings of the final posts, you arbitrarily limited your list to 3. But look at the post just before the first one you list:

I wasn’t making a statement about Christians, I was making a statement about hysterical religious profiling. The same is true of other statements I’ve made about Christians blowing up abortion clinics, etc. I’m not saying that to bash Christians, I’m using thsoe examples to show that it’s ridiculous to make assumptions about the whole based on the behavior of an extreme minority of nutters and violent bigots.

That’s Dio arguing with mswas about “hysterical religious profiling” (whatever that is). The thread was a trainwreck by the time Tom intervened and Maastricht posted. It might have made it in the Pit, but that was Tom’s call, whether to close it or move it to the Pit, where Dio and mswas could hash it out. Mods make calls. Either way they make the call, someone is likely to complain. It just so happens that the call went the way that prompted you to complain. Had Tom made some other decision, someone else might be here complaining that he has no balls, and is letting a trainwreck proceed in Great Debates.

Liberal, thanks for your response, but I still don’t understand. If Tom was trying to bring the thread back on topic, why close the thread right afterwards?

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, because you didn’t get it. I have no problem with Tom closing the thread, or with Tom trying to bring it back on line. What I have a problem with is Tom posting and then immediately closing the thread before anyone can respond to his post.

I don’t know if Tom did this deliberately or not. I’m just saying it’s the wrong thing to do. He should either get in or get out. Close the thread, sure. Straighten out the thread, sure. Move it to the pit, sure.

But post a controversial opinion and then immediately close the thread? Why are you defending that? Like I said, what am I missing here?

This.

If a thread is worth posting to, it is worth leaving open. (It’s also worth reading before you post, for crying out loud.) If a thread is a trainwreck, DNFTT - lock the thread, or move it or something.

But posting your opinion and then locking the thread is annoying for the same reason saying “you are on my ignore list” is annoying - it smacks of the 'nyaah nyaah I can’t hear you" school of debate.

Regards,
Shodan

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, everybody. C’mon. The last person to get his say in that thread was NOT Tom, but Maastricht. All Tom did was basically call for a restart, inviting the opening of a new thread, ostensibly in the hopes that Dio and mswas would not hijack it. It just seems to me like nefarious motives are being assigned to Tom for no good reason.

Oh, please. Are you a lawyer? Maastricht happened to slip into the fifteen minute slot between when Tom posted and when he closed the thread. He didn’t even comment on Tom’s post, and Maastricht’s post was clear and informative.

Surely you don’t think that excuses Tom’s actions?

Also, you say that “nefarious motives are being assigned to Tom” … despite the fact that I clearly said:

Liberal, Tom is quite free to (and likely occasionally justified to) close a thread immediately after I post. That’s not a problem

But doing it immediately after he posts is an abuse of power.

True, but not relevant here, it turns out. Look up the meaning of the word “immediately.”

:smack:

I dunno. I never really understood how two people having a heated conversation where neither of them is losing their shit at the other one, but neither are they being very cordial is a hijack. If Dio and I are having a discussion you can join in or not as is your pleasure. I regularly read threads and skim them until I find the thread of conversation that I am involved with. Like the Wolf Whistle thread in the BBQ Pit, it’s hundreds of posts long, I haven’t read even half of them, I read specifically the ones that interested me. I guess I just have a higher tolerance for hijacks. My view on it is that you can’t really hijack a thread if the other people are more interested in their viewpoint. I regularly post things that get no response at all and if they don’t get a response I don’t keep pimping it I move on. Besides Dio and I didn’t hijack the thread, that’s an abuse of the word hijack. We were speculating about what the motivations to run away from home were. I think that’s pretty relevant to the thread. Rubystreak and I got into it for a minute and we both saw when it was fruitless and we ended it. I like Rubystreak because she and I have found out a way to deal with one another where we know when it’s just becoming futile. I wish more of the people I clashed with were like that. Yes Dio and I were both projecting our own personal histories onto that thread, but I don’t see that as being a ‘hijack’. I guess it’s all subjective though.

I’ve been trying to decide whether to respond to this or not, Kimmy_Gibbler, because I don’t want to get involved in a debate about tomndebb. Speaking in generalities, though…

Your idea really wouldn’t work. Almost all Dopers have forums that they regularly participate in–that they’re really interested in. Similarly, most of us have forums we avoid. Moderating is an unpaid volunteer position. Despite the rumors and jokes, the compensation is limited to a mug and a shirt (I did get a free book once).

Under your system, becoming a moderator would mean either (a) having to read a forum I’m not interested in, or (b) having to stop participating in a forum I enjoy. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn’t do it. I can’t imagine very many of the other mods would be interested, either.

I think the issue of participating in threads as both poster and moderator is quite overblown. It happens every day, and only becomes an issue once in a blue moon. All of us are perfectly capable of saying “I disagree with XYZ about these issues” and ten posts later saying, “Hey, XYZ, cut out the personal insults in MPSIMS.”

I know, in the heat of the moment it’s easy to take personal offense when somebody you’re arguing with steps back and issues a moderatorly admonition. But it’s very rarely personal. Really.

Comments on various points raised in this thread:

Moderator posting a comment and then closing the thread before people can respond?
In this case the comment was pretty generic, and then when the thread was closed the Mod said it could be started right up again, without the vitriol.
**
Mods shouldn’t participate in threads they’re moderating.**
They’re here because they love the SDMB. If mods can’t post on things that interest them, it makes their lives less happy. Their postings aren’t causing horrible problems, so screw the platonic ideal of Moderation, and try to keep the volunteers contented.

Mods should finish threads before offering comments.
Everybody should, but also no one should violate the speed limit unnecessarily. I’ll normally finish a thread before commenting, but not invariably. If my comment is the kind that can be dropped in at any point, I might go ahead and post.
**
Mods should try to parse the threads and only slap down the people actually at fault.**
The few times in my life when I’ve actually tried to isolate the root cause of a multi-page squabble it took half an hour or longer. On the other hand, it takes almost no time at all to see that a thread has a 90/10 heat/light ratio.

In the thread under discussion, I felt it obvious who the main troublemaker was, but several other people clearly had a different opinion. And were the “good guys” completely blameless? Were there a few overly personal comments made by posters who were otherwise making GD-appropriate posts? I don’t know and I’m not about to try to parse every boring legalistic post in that thread.

So again, carefully isolating blame to the person who starts the trouble is good in theory, but isn’t always practical. If the same person shows up with questionably posts in several trainwrecks, then they will probably face some consequences eventually.

People make this sound difficult, but it’s not.

As you’re reading a thread, every time you see something you want to respond to, click the “multi-quote” button (it’s the one with the quote mark to the right of the big oval “QUOTE” button). When you get to the very end, click the “RESPOND” button.

Everything you wanted to respond to is right there. If someone beat you to it on some of them, just delete those. Respond to the rest. There’s little reason to respond immediately to something on page 2 of a six-page thread.

I didn’t know about multi-quote. Might prove useful.

It is worth pointing out that the button only shows up if someone is logged in.

Y’know, when cops violate the speed limit while not responding to a call, they deservedly get flack for it. I beleive it’s justifable to call a mod out on doing something that they encourage others not to do.

Unless someone submitted a “report this post” request about a specific breach, mods should exercise the board courtesy of reading the whole damn thread before posting. People who don’t do this will invariably look inconsiderate and stupid eventually.

I agree, and thank you for posting the caveat.

When we receive a report on a post, we really do try to go and check it out right away. Sometimes it takes some research or consulting with admins or other mods before taking action. In those cases, we do try to read the whole thread.

But if we get a report that somebody slung a personal insult in a thread like the current World of Warcraft thread (4,381 posts and still growing), I don’t think anyone really expects us to read the whole thread before dealing with it.

I do, but I’m being a sadist. :smiley:

With the level of anal retentiveness seen on these boards, it’s a wonder anyone is willing to moderate at all. Especially when all people do is give the mods a hard time all the time.