# Tuba Diva, why did you lock this thread? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 2, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250 "2010-11-02T21:13:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/81 "2010-11-05T14:51:28Z")
I post to this forum once in a blue moon as how the SDMB is run doesn’t particularly interest me – MPSIMS even less if that’s possible. That said I did read the thread in question from the resulting offshoot in The BBQ Pit, a forum I do enjoy. And I think it’s pretty obvious that **twickster** was waaay too emotionally involved to even _attempt_ to moderate that thread in rational fashion. It only takes a quick glance at her “non-mod” posts to see that. Prefabricated excuses & circling wagons notwithstanding, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. _:::shrug:::_ ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/82 "2010-11-05T16:54:52Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I don’t think the “point” of the thread was to debate AA. I think that the point of the thread was to discuss what would help the OP with his issues involving alcohol, and that he specifically asked about AA as an option for dealing with those issues. Therefore, discussing the merits of AA is absolutely relevant. Otherwise, what’s the point? Person A says “Oh, AA worked for me,” Person B says, “No, it didn’t work for my sister,” and then we just shrug and say, “Oh well”? Or do we take a tally of anecdotes and whichever side has the most is right? There’s some level of in thread exchange that is acceptable, but at some point the “does AA work” part overwhelms the “what should I do” part. Rather than bury the debate over AA in a “what should I do” thread, start a new thread in GD to Debate a contentious issue, and post a link. Then the OP can go read the material if he desires and thinks it is helpful, but also anyone else looking for a debate on AA can find it in Great Debates and not have to wade through posts on “apologize to the family” or whatever. > [@](#): > > Which is fine, if that’s what she’s doing. But then she should be doing it _every time it happens_, and not just because the debate that’s going on is something she has a personal investment in and she doesn’t like that people are saying negative things about an organization that has been very important to her. So, if that’s what she does, I’m just asking for an example of even \*one other time \*she’s done it, or any other moderator has done it. I would swear I remember it happening before, but don’t remember any of the details like which thread, which forums, or which moderator were involved. Like **twickster** said, it’s housekeeping. Okay, following **Czarcasm** ’s advice, I searched on his name in ATMB. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530560) is a 6 page thread in Comments on Cecil’s Columns that is about pit bulls. It was closed by **Rico** for ceasing to be about the column and turning into a debate. It wasn’t moved, it was closed. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=550699) is a thread in IHMO polling about “Do you believe that Barack Obama has the country’s best interest at heart?” It is closed because Czarcasm directs people to not debate in that thread, but they continue to debate. It is not moved, it is closed because people don’t follow instructions. [And here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12101410) is the thread bitching about that thread. There is two examples of a mod other than twickster closing rather than moving a thread, for the posters creating a debate in a non-debate forum thread. Happy now? Or are you going to analyze why each of those situations is not exactly the same, and decide they are not relevant to this discussion, and ask for more examples? > [@the lone cashew](#): > > **Irishman** wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Because Alcoholics Anonymous is a topic that has some signifincant meaning to some people. This board is organized along the lines that debates about significant issues get moved to Great Debates. If you want a board that is organized on different lines, go start one. > > There are often topics in MPSIMS that have significant meaning to some people, announcements and discussions alike. There are several there at the moment, one of which is concerns rape, certainly a serious topic. Often threads that branch off into serious discussion contain opening OPs, contain discussion/comments that are not suitable to Great Debates - the AA thread in MPSIMS was one of those. I did NOT say that all serious topics or things that people have significant meaning over go to Great Debates. I am fully aware that many MPSIMS topics are meaningful and emotional and serious. What I meant was debates about contentious topics, topics likely to garner strong emotions and get heated, belong in GD. DEBATES belong in GD, not “serious topics belong in GD”. > [@](#): > > The appropriate thing to do was to start a different thread in Great Debates on the same topic - which someone did. And then posters _continued to debate AA_ in the MPSIMS thread, despite being told not to. You forgot that part. I agree starting a new debate thread in GD was appropriate, and I agree someone did that. But the significant part of this conversation was about why **twickster** closed this thread. > [@](#): > > I like this message board and don’t have many suggestions about how it might be run better, and this “complaint” is a minor one. Your suggestion to go start my own message board if I don’t like it, is uncalled for and a bit highhanded. Perhaps I was a bit brusque. But I don’t get your post. On the one hand, you say the correct thing to do is to start a new debate thread in GD for the debate topic, so you seem to get it. But at the same time, you are asking why we can’t allow some Great Debates to continue in the middle of MPSIMS threads. The board has been organized like this from the beginning. Debates over contentious and potentially heated topics go in GD. Yet here you are seeming to say we should allow some debates over contentious and potentially heated topics to occur in other forums simply because somebody kicks one off in the middle of a different thread. That just sounds preposterous to me. Why _should_ we allow debates in the middle of other threads in the middle of other forums? Why _shouldn’t_ we tell people to take the debates elsewhere, _and close the threads if people won’t comply_? If we’re not going to do that, then why do we have forums at all? > [@](#): > > It’s sometimes not the best solution to move a thread, and the AA thread was one of those - since it contained information/content which would not have been suitable for a GD thread/topic. > Starting a new thread in this case was the appropriate move. Yes, and I’ve said all this - either in this thread or the one which spawned it. > [@](#): > > And the padlock - well any padlock should call for good reason, any discussion should not be shut down without a darned good one. This was not an appropriate occasion for a padlock, IMO. I disagree. The mod instructed participants to take the debate to GD. Participants did not comply with mod instructions. Some action is required. Couple that with the fact that the OP posted that he had decided what to do, which essentially ended the rest of the topic, and there was no point for the thread to remain open, and the thread was actively engaged in GD material in the wrong forum. Ergo, there was a good reason to close the thread. Of course a mod could have gone in and dropped Warnings on all the people who failed to comply with mod instructions. Somehow I don’t see that as having gone over well. Even if it was someone else, like Gary or Colibri instead of twicks. But closing the thread? Who is hurt by that? Especially after the OP has indicated he has was he needed from the thread. Redfury, so as long as I don’t tell you it’s raining, I can piss on your leg? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ostrya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/35a633/32.png) [@Ostrya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ostrya)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/83 "2010-11-05T19:06:07Z")
To **Irishman** : The topic didn’t start out as a debate - rather a debate-like discussion ensued from the original topic. This does not deem the thread one that should then be moved to **Great Debate** s. If the original topic had been started as a debate however, then moving it would have been the proper thing to do. We agree to disagree on this. My view is that overlapping discussion can exist - and can be a good thing - like the debate-like discussion that was occurring simultaneously about the merits of AA in the Barbeque Pit. Do you feel that that particular pit thread should have been closed? Or padlocked? Simply because a debate began concerning an issue that many hold dear regarding AA? And that that same issue was currently being discussed in GD? We agree to disagree but you twisted my words a bit. And I did not intend to twist yours. I was attempting to reply to your statement about the seriousness about the AA issue, that is all. But I did not say that Great Debates belong in any other forum - rather debate-like discussions can stem off from, stray from original topics a bit and ensue - in other forums. And do so with the benefit of everyone. These discussions might be interesting to some, some may find them useful, and if the OP doesn’t mind, why should a mod get involved? Issuing warnings, etc? I think that for the most part the moderation on this board is very good. I also think that in many cases, the best moderation is as little as possible. And I think that applies in this case. I have tried to explain my view, it’s not that important an issue to me, either. And I don’t have the energy, or the skill you seem to have to parse and pick these disagreements apart. I just hope my opinion is more clear, so we can simply agree to disagree. I am more than willing to leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/84 "2010-11-05T19:43:43Z")
> [@the lone cashew](#): > > To **Irishman** : The topic didn’t start out as a debate - rather a debate-like discussion ensued from the original topic. This does not deem the thread one that should then be moved to **Great Debate** s. If the original topic had been started as a debate however, then moving it would have been the proper thing to do. Fully agreed on this. > [@](#): > > Do you feel that that particular pit[_sic_] thread should have been closed? Or padlocked? Simply because a debate began concerning an issue that many hold dear regarding AA? And that that same issue was currently being discussed in GD? Yes, I feel it was appropriate to close the MPSIMS thread. > [@](#): > > We agree to disagree but you twisted my words a bit. And I did not intend to twist yours. I was attempting to reply to your statement about the seriousness about the AA issue, that is all. But I did not say that Great Debates belong in any other forum - rather debate-like discussions can stem off from, stray from original topics a bit and ensue - in other forums. And do so with the benefit of everyone. I did not intentionally misrepresent you. I tried to explain what I hear you saying. If I am mistaken, I apologize. To me, a “debate-like discussion” does not have any significant distinction from a debate. Can you explain the difference? To me, a debate-like discussion on a topic best suited to GD occurring in a forum other than GD is a reason for moderator intervention. That intervention can take any number of permutations which I think I dissected earlier. The key is that the debate-like discussion on a contentious topic belongs in the Debate forum. My point about the seriousness of the AA issue was not to imply serious topics are not discussed in MPSIMS, it was to try to convey that heated debates go to the heated debate forum. > [@](#): > > I have tried to explain my view, it’s not that important an issue to me, either. And I don’t have the energy, or the skill you seem to have to parse and pick these disagreements apart. I just hope my opinion is more clear, so we can simply agree to disagree. I am more than willing to leave it at that. I am willing to accept that we agree to disagree. There are some, though, who are trying to change things. My explanation is in line with the way the moderators have been acting since day one of this board. I am backing that interpretation as valid. If you do not wish to argue the point, then accept that the mods want things this way and will continue to enforce things this way, and don’t let it bother you. Peace. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/85 "2010-11-05T20:44:32Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > That seems like kind of an odd objection. When a mod is doing something that only a mod can do, it seems pretty obvious that they’re doing it as a mod, so they shouldn’t \*need \*to point it out. Please take it to ATMB. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/86 "2010-11-05T21:22:58Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Prefabricated excuses & circling wagons notwithstanding, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. The Straight Dope: pissing on your legs and telling you it’s raining since 1973. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/87 "2010-11-05T21:38:19Z")
I just want to say that I like, respect, and support **Twickster**. As I see it, she made a mistake. She then apologized for that mistake. I’m ready to let the matter drop. OTOH, a certain member of the brass section made a confusing and over the top post to this very thread. I await an explanation from that mod. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/88 "2010-11-08T19:14:49Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Just keeding. Suuuuuuuuuuure. 😃 > [@twickster](#): > > It’s precisely because it’s so run-of-the-mill that no one has examples at his or her fingertips. Despite the occasional outburst of outrage at a particular decision, 99% of mod activity is utterly mundane and completely unmemorable. It’s housekeeping – do you have any reason to recall the details of a sinkful of dishes you washed six months ago? You guys really don’t lock threads that often, especially since you stopped auto-locking zombie threads. Again, I apparently need to remind you that I’ve been in your shoes. And while it’s been a few years since I was a mod, if you would have asked me at the time “give me an example of a thread you locked for reason X” I’m reasonably sure I could have found you one. I’m interested how something can be so run-of-the-mill as to be unmemorable but also so infrequent that it hasn’t happened for months. > [@Irishman](#): > > There’s some level of in thread exchange that is acceptable, but at some point the “does AA work” part overwhelms the “what should I do” part. To me, that’s where our opinoins differ: I see “does AA work” being an integral and necessary part of the response to “what should I do.” I don’t see how you can have people simultaneously advising X and Not X and think it’s valid to have both of those opposing viewpoints be equally valid and useful. However, that gets to the crux of the issue of the original thread: when there is a case when mod discretion comes into play, versus a clear violation of board rules, should a mod who has a clear emotional investment in one side of a discussion (especially to the extent that they are already breaking board rules) be expected to recuse themself? In all of the back and forth about whether \*\*twickster \*\*made the right decision in this particular instance, I think that’s what we keep losing sight of. So, what do you think? Do you think that when someone is demonstraby involved to the point of losing control over their emotions that they should be allowed to continue to moderate _that particular thread_? > [@](#): > > There is two examples of a mod other than twickster closing rather than moving a thread, for the posters creating a debate in a non-debate forum thread. Happy now? Or are you going to analyze why each of those situations is not exactly the same, and decide they are not relevant to this discussion, and ask for more examples? The latter, sorry. I don’t see either of those cases containing an OP that explicitly invites discussion and debate, which the OP of the thread in question here _did_. The OP itself was really in the wrong forum–it wasn’t someone who wanted to talk about their potential alcoholism, but rather someone who wanted opinions and debate on whether or not they were an alcoholic and what to do about it. To me, it seems pretty clear that the thread should have been moved to IMHO or GD from the start. Actually, the second example might be a good one: the end result was a suspension of \*all \*political polls in IMHO, because the mod recognized that such polls inherently lend themselves to encouraging debate. If it hadn’t been a poll, I wouldn’t be surprized if \*\*Czarcasm \*\*would have just moved the thread to GD (comments on that hypothetical, **Czar**?) Again, though, we’re getting back to the heart of the issue: clearly, we have two rational people here (you and me) who have two reasoned and supported opinions on why we, personally, would have taken two completely different routes as moderators: I would have moved the thread, while you would have ordered the creation of a new thread specifically for the AA discussion. Again, my initial thread on this subject was not about **twickster** ’s action specifically as much as it was about whether or not someone should continue to make subjective decisions such as these when there is something that could be seen to influence that decision. (It’s this thread itself that was about the specific reason for another thread being locked.) > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Please take it to ATMB. Yes, yes, very clever. You’re failing at making the point you think you’re making, however. Anyone can take a split-second to glance up and see that you’re not a mod and therefore (a) making a joke or (b) junior modding, while anyone who sees \*\*twickster \*\*say the same thing can glance up and see that she’s a mod with the power to tell you exactly where to stick it. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/89 "2010-11-08T21:19:49Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I’m interested how something can be so run-of-the-mill as to be unmemorable but also so infrequent that it hasn’t happened for months. Just because something is infrequent doesn’t mean it sticks out in the mind. > [@](#): > > To me, that’s where our opinoins differ: That’s what I’ve been saying all along - opinions differ. Your opinion is different than the one that moderated the thread. Other reasonable opinions think the moderation was acceptable. Ergo, there was no error. (See below for more.) > [@](#): > > I see “does AA work” being an integral and necessary part of the response to “what should I do.” I don’t see how you can have people simultaneously advising X and Not X and think it’s valid to have both of those opposing viewpoints be equally valid and useful. Well, given that personalities are different and interests are different, I can totally accept that something may work for you that doesn’t work for me. An example of something that works for some people and not others is church. Regarding two people expressing diametrically opposed positions that seem to be arguing over facts, I never said not to have that conversation, and that the person shouldn’t want to see how it goes. But it doesn’t have to occur in the same conversation space. Make a separate thread, put a link with a description “See argument over whether to butter the toast on the top or bottom\* over here”, then proceed with the thread about “What should I have for breakfast?”. Each person can vehemently defend the position that butter must go on a specific side of the toast, and the OP can decide to listen or decide he doesn’t care because he has opted not to eat toast anyway, and instead is going with a bowl of cereal and a glass of OJ. Anyone who cares about toast and butter can continue to participate in that argument without hijacking the guy’s thread on whether he should eat Cheerios or shredded wheat. > [@](#): > > However, that gets to the crux of the issue of the original thread: when there is a case when mod discretion comes into play, versus a clear violation of board rules, should a mod who has a clear emotional investment in one side of a discussion (especially to the extent that they are already breaking board rules) be expected to recuse themself? In all of the back and forth about whether \*\*twickster \*\*made the right decision in this particular instance, I think that’s what we keep losing sight of. > > So, what do you think? Do you think that when someone is demonstraby involved to the point of losing control over their emotions that they should be allowed to continue to moderate _that particular thread_? I agree that the specific incident has overshadowed discussion on the general case. In general, that would certainly be a sensible way to protect one’s own reputation. If you’ve already blown your cool, suggest another mod play the heavy so your impartiality or lack thereof is not part of the issue. In practice, I don’t know if it would help to have an explicit rule on the mods that way. I mean, I can anticipate no end to the amount of bitching that **tomndebb** is completely too partial to be moderating _my thread_\*\*, and while one would hope the clearly explicit “to the point of violating board rules himself” would cut that off, I don’t know that the posters making the whine already would do any better with that statement to guide them. Most seem too interested in bitching about Tom to worry about little details like actual impartiality or reasonableness of the action taken. YMMV. > [@](#): > > The latter, sorry. I don’t see either of those cases containing an OP that explicitly invites discussion and debate, which the OP of the thread in question here _did_. Just proving my point - why should I take time to find examples when you are just going to dismiss them? I’ve already stated we disagree over the interpretation of how relevant the debate was in that thread. I’ve already conceded that _you_ think it was an essential part. I _disagree_. I don’t see how me looking for more examples helps when you don’t agree over the content to begin with. To me, you asked for examples of threads that were locked instead of being moved. I gave you examples. > [@](#): > > The OP itself was really in the wrong forum–it wasn’t someone who wanted to talk about their potential alcoholism, but rather someone who wanted opinions and debate on whether or not they were an alcoholic and what to do about it. To me, it seems pretty clear that the thread should have been moved to IMHO or GD from the start. I grant you the topic really belonged in IMHO instead of MPSIMS. I still think, though, that the debate over AA was a sidebar to the OP’s real question of “what can I do to fix my family relationships?”, and that that debate belongs in GD over IMHO or MPSIMS. [quote] Actually, the second example might be a good one: the end result was a suspension of \*all \*political polls in IMHO, because the mod recognized that such polls inherently lend themselves to encouraging debate. If it hadn’t been a poll, I wouldn’t be surprized if \*\*Czarcasm \*\*would have just moved the thread to GD (comments on that hypothetical, **Czar**?) Yeah, that’s been another hot button of contention. But I still think the example is justified of a case where a moderator closed a thread rather than moving it. That decision was based upon content of the thread and where that content belongs, and based on people not following instructions to take GD content to GD. And the whole thread wasn’t moved because polls don’t go in GD (which is a separate debate), just like in our topic the whole thread wasn’t moved to GD because the OP was discussing “what should I do”, of which AA was only one element. > [@](#): > > Again, though, we’re getting back to the heart of the issue: clearly, we have two rational people here (you and me) who have two reasoned and supported opinions on why we, personally, would have taken two completely different routes as moderators: I would have moved the thread, while you would have ordered the creation of a new thread specifically for the AA discussion. Again, my initial thread on this subject was not about **twickster** ’s action specifically as much as it was about whether or not someone should continue to make subjective decisions such as these when there is something that could be seen to influence that decision. I agree this is the root of the whole topic. The thing is, this post seems to be the first time you have acknowledged that a reasonable person _could_ side with the actions taken by **twickster**. This is the first time that you’ve suggested that **twickster** _might_ have been being impartial, or at least justified. That’s part of the reason the specific incident has taken more focus than the general topic. Even when **twickster** asked you in this thread if you thought she might have been being reasonable, you didn’t accept that she could. _That_ to me is a strong part of why the mods don’t seem interested in discussing the point. To them, you seem too hung up on hanging **twickster** , and just looking for an excuse. That certainly is **Tubadiva** ’s interpretation, which is part of the reasons for her reactions. I’m totally willing to shift the focus of the conversation. Let’s stop making this about whether the AA debate belonged in that thread - agree to disagree or whatever. Let’s stop hanging on the specific example of that thread. Let’s pose a clear, concise question about board policy. I think I stated an example previously. Maybe we should make it a new thread, and divorce it from any links to previous incidents? * * * \*Refer to the seminal work by one Dr. Suess. \*\* Example chosen because that whine is already common. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/90 "2010-11-08T22:02:08Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > That’s what I’ve been saying all along - opinions differ. Your opinion is different than the one that moderated the thread. Other reasonable opinions think the moderation was acceptable. Ergo, there was no error. Personally, I think that when there are two “right” decisions, but a person choses one of them for the invalid reasons, that makes it a “wrong” decision. > [@](#): > > Just proving my point - why should I take time to find examples when you are just going to dismiss them? But I very demonstrably \*didn’t \*“just” dismiss them–I read them and considered them. You simply didn’t like the conclusion I came to: that your examples were not entirely relevant to the situation at hand, to wit, an OP that was requesting discussion on the very topic that was considered a “hijack.” > [@](#): > > Even when **twickster** asked you in this thread if you thought she might have been being reasonable, you didn’t accept that she could. Now that is absolutely, 100%, demonstrably inaccurate,\* not to mention offensive. Here is what I believe, for the record: At the absolute _worst case_, \*\*twickster \*\*believes that she was acting impartially. > [@](#): > > Maybe we should make it a new thread, and divorce it from any links to previous incidents? Maybe so. Given that I’ve already had one thread on the subject locked, however, I’m not going to start another one without the go-ahead from a mod or admin. * * * \*Cites: > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > If that’s what you were trying to do, I could maybe see it (see next paragraph). The problem is that your deeply personal involvement casted a shadow of bias over every possible action you could have taken in that thread. Can you see how, after you demonstrated that you were already mad enough to break rules, it would be very easy to see you ordering everyone who’s disagreeing with you to take it somewhere else as an intentional chilling effect on the discussion? > > I’m also not sure what you mean by a “non-debate discussion.” We just all say what’s happened to us personally, and nobody can comment on anybody else’s experiences? No one can point out basic rules of logic or statistics or science anywhere outside of GD? > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Now you’re putting words in \*my \*mouth; and, in fact, ignoring the entire substance of my post. You say you were acting in good faith, and I’m sure you were. (No snark there, if it’s hard to tell from the fact that this is text.) But my point is that your judgment in that thread, on that topic, is severely in question. Which was the entire purpose of the original thread: \*should \*moderators moderate in threads where they have a clear, personal, emotional involvement? > > When a judge recuses themself, they aren’t saying to the world, “I am incapable of judging impartially and I’m a horrible person, woe is me.” What they \*are \*saying is, “There is no way I can judge this while maintaining the appearance of impartiality, because my personal connection to the issue means that any decision I render can’t be proven to be unbiased.” > > This is not just about you, and I’m sorry if it feels like a “pick on **twickster** ” party. You just happened to prompt a question by the actions you took in that thread. If those actions are the same that any other mod would have taken, what I’m trying to say is, _you should have let another mod take them_. My point is that, in my opinion, the mods of this board (or any board) should have the maturity to recognize when they are too close to an issue to be truly objective in moderating a discussion on it, and step back from any kind of “judgement call” moderation in those threads. ---
**Author:** ![Omegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e480ec/32.png) [@Omegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omegaman)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/91 "2010-11-08T22:42:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Can anyone else spot the big hole in this theory? Baaaaaaaaaa ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/92 "2010-11-09T17:26:03Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Yes, yes, very clever. You’re failing at making the point you think you’re making, however. Really? You said she did something only a mod can do. Your words, not mine. I did it. Now either I am a mod, or there is a hole on your theory. > [@](#): > > Anyone can take a split-second to glance up and see that you’re not a mod and therefore (a) making a joke or (b) junior modding, while anyone who sees \*\*twickster \*\*say the same thing can glance up and see that she’s a mod with the power to tell you exactly where to stick it. In a thread where there is a question about when she is modding and when she isn’t, it would behoove her to make it clear, especially when she previously did make it clear. As for whether I have said power, apparently I do, since I did it. _Fait accompli_ and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/93 "2010-11-09T17:56:23Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Really? You said she did something only a mod can do. Your words, not mine. I did it. Now either I am a mod, or there is a hole on your theory. Or you didn’t read the rest of my post. Anyone who’s not a mod who tells you to “take it to ATMB” is either joking (in a way that a mod might potentially object to and that people have gotten warnings/notes for before) or junior modding (which is \*definitely \*against the rules). Anyone who \*is \*a mod is clearly acting in an official capacity. I.e., any mod who takes an action that can \*only \*legitimately be taken by a mod is, _ **ipso facto** _, acting as a mod _at that point_. You may debate after that whether it was a legitimate or “lawful” use of their moderator power, but what is not up for discussion is whether it was, in fact, a moderator action. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/94 "2010-11-09T18:08:34Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Or you didn’t read the rest of my post. Anyone who’s not a mod who tells you to “take it to ATMB” is either joking (in a way that a mod might potentially object to and that people have gotten warnings/notes for before) or junior modding (which is \*definitely \*against the rules). Anyone who \*is \*a mod is clearly acting in an official capacity. > > I.e., any mod who takes an action that can \*only \*legitimately be taken by a mod is, _ **ipso facto** _, acting as a mod _at that point_. You may debate after that whether it was a legitimate or “lawful” use of their moderator power, but what is not up for discussion is whether it was, in fact, a moderator action. Regardless. The fact remains that I performed an action that you said I could not do, our \*ex post facto \*rationalizing aside. \*\*twickster _made it clear that when she does something only a mod can do_, like moving or locking a thread, no mod notes are necessary. Telling someone to take it to ATMB is not in that category, as a cursory glimpse of this thread should reveal to anyone not blinded by prejudice. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/95 "2010-11-09T18:16:31Z")
:rolleyes: If you want to nitpick over the literal meaning of what I said instead of my clear intent, go for it. Yes, you \*can \*tell me to “take it to ATMB,” in the sense that there is nothing in the board code that physically prevents you from doing so. However, you \*should not \*give me that instruction, because you are not a moderator. And again, you miss the main point: Any non-staff poster who gives such an instruction is either joking or junior modding. Any staff poster who gives such an instruction is acting in an official capacity. The only alternative is that they are (a) joking, which would be pretty obvious from context, or (b) junior modding, which is physically impossible, since they are a moderator. Ergo, the only sensible conclusion is that any time that a staff member gives you an instruction that only a staff member can legitimately give, they are, by the fact of giving that instruction, acting as a staff member at that point, and further explanation that they are acting as a staff member is not required. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/96 "2010-11-09T18:21:38Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > :rolleyes: If you want to nitpick over the literal meaning of what I said instead of my clear intent, go for it. Yes, you \*can \*tell me to “take it to ATMB,” in the sense that there is nothing in the board code that physically prevents you from doing so. However, you \*should not \*give me that instruction, because you are not a moderator. > > And again, you miss the main point: > > Any non-staff poster who gives such an instruction is either joking or junior modding. > > Any staff poster who gives such an instruction is acting in an official capacity. The only alternative is that they are (a) joking, which would be pretty obvious from context, or (b) junior modding, which is physically impossible, since they are a moderator. > > Ergo, the only sensible conclusion is that any time that a staff member gives you an instruction that only a staff member can legitimately give, they are, by the fact of giving that instruction, acting as a staff member at that point, and further explanation that they are acting as a staff member is not required. At which point you could either report the post as such, or yammer on about for it for a dozen posts or so. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/97 "2010-11-09T18:23:17Z")
Posters tell other posters\* all the time \*that they are posting in the wrong forum, without admonishment. I reject your assertion that only mods can do so legitimately, and ask for a cite. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/98 "2010-11-09T18:25:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > yammer on about for it for a dozen posts or so. I feel so bad for you, being compelled to read **SFG** ’s yammering. If only there were some remedy within your capacity to free you from this awful burden you bear… ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/99 "2010-11-09T18:38:46Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > I vote for “corrupt”–I think they’re very competent at promoting their “posters are sheep” agenda. Your completely correct. The posters are sheep. The mods are the shepherds. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250/100 "2010-11-09T19:18:40Z")
Deal with corruption? This is how I deal with it–I point it out when it’s particularly egregious sometimes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tuba-diva-why-did-you-lock-this-thread/559250.md?page=6)