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.
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?
Let’s remove this from the context of AA for a moment and consider a different hypothetical. Let’s say someone posted in MPSIMS talking about how they were sick with the flu and wondering if they should try a homeopathic remedy. Somebody replies that they took some Oscillococcinum and it worked great. More people replied to point out the various evidence for why homeopathy is generally considered useless. Do you (a) move the thread to IMHO or GD; (b) leave the thread where it is and trust that the supporter(s) of homeopathy will counter with evidence of their own, if they have any; or (c) tell everyone who wants to debate whether homeopathy is science or pseudoscience to take it somewhere else, and that they can only post in the current thread if they stick to anecdotes and don’t offer any critiques of any one else’s anecdotal “evidence”?
You don’t think it’s important to observe when a board staff member responds to a legitimate question with an inexplicable series of accusations and then doesn’t come back to respond to the question or apologize for the outburst? I just found it interesting that this thread has turned into a further discussion of the topic of the original thread, which was ostensibly locked because it was over, and the person who locked it and who was asked why she locked it has yet to explain that decision.
I was mostly wondering if it was possible for you to consider the possibility that I was acting in good faith. Apparently it isn’t. Thanks for your input.
This is what I have been attempting to explain. The OP is titled “I think I’m an alcoholic”, not “Debate the merits of AA”. The OP asks several questions, including
Notice that while there is a question about AA and whether it is worthwhile, it is contained within a broader discussion of “will not drinking at all make my problems go away?” and “how do I fix what I did? What actions can I take to show my family that I can change.” Notice which question the OP emphasized with “most importantly” - it’s not the merits of AA, it’s the last part about fixing what he did.
Given this context, twickster felt the thread had a primary topic of discussing what to do, how to deal with alcoholism, and how to fix the family relationship, and the details of the merits of AA was really a Great Debate hiding in the thread. So she tried to separate them, and when the posters contributing to the thread failed to comply with directions, she closed the thread.
I realize you think the point of the thread was to debate AA, but that is not how others, especially twickster, saw it.
I’m not sure how to even search for that. What terms would I use? “Threads closed for failing to take the topic to the appropriate forum”? “Threads separating a Great Debate topic out of a non Great Debate topic?” “MPSIMS threads where a GD breaks out”? I don’t know any way to find what you’re asking for other than a brute force read through various fora until I find an appropriate example or two. Well, I haven’t found any examples in the threads I’m reading. When I do, I’ll try to remember to return here and point them out for you.
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.
Without trying to put words into twickster’s mouth, I think she’s trying to differentiate the kinds of topics that belong in Great Debates, the topics that are “long-running discussions of great topics of our time”, the kind of polarizing topics that draw passion and sometimes heat. Things like political parties, abortion, gun control, religion, how to stop crime, proper use of self-defense, etc. Whether or not Alcoholics Anonymous has value or works is definitely in that category of topics. It’s a bit hard to shorthand a description for “topics that belong in Great Debates”.
This is also something of a judgment call, because it depends upon the intent of the original question, how quickly the merits of homeopathy enter the discussion, how much the thread centers on homeopathy vs other possible remedies, etc. In a parallel case to the one we’ve been discussing, where the question was fairly broad (I’m sick with the flu, I feel miserable. I’ve called the doctor but they can’t offer much but drink fluids and rest. What else can I do? I’ve heard about a homeopathic remedy - should I try it? What fluids should I drink? I don’t feel like eating, but need some calories - suggestions?) and the posters are discussing several of those issues, I do think it would be likely a mod would tell the folks who wish to debate the merits of homeopathy to take it to GD and reserve this thread for sharing anecdotes and recommendations. (Note, a recommendation is “don’t take homeopathic remedies, they don’t work.” A debate is arguing back and forth and citing studies and descriptions of methodology and how it contradicts chemistry, etc.)
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.
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?
Really, I was figuring that if this was such a standard thing, every mod would be able to remember at least one or two threads where they did it.
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 used to do it all the time in IMHO. A conversation would start, a side conversation/argument would break out concerning an issue suited more for GD than IMHO, and I would tell the participants to take that part of the issue to the appropriate forum. At that time they would either do so, or they would ignore the request, forcing me to:
Can you give a specific example? I can absolutely see this being understandable if it’s a sidetrack, but (to me) the AA discussion in this case was absolutely germane to the OP.
P.S. I’m leaving for the airport in less than five minutes; please don’t consider the thread dead if I don’t post again until Monday.
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?
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.
The appropriate thing to do was to start a different thread in Great Debates on the same topic - which someone did. 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.
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.
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.
Oh, come on. It was an out of control mod, followed by embarrassed behind-the-scenes Mod discussion for maximum deniability, followed by a wagon-circling lock-down and “move-on,nuttin-to-see -here, just-business-as-usual” handwaving, followed by some righteous mod indignation. Just acknowledge that and let’s move on, shall we?
Yeah, right. When asterisks explode from porcine butts, maybe.
I see. So we aren’t looking for answers here-we’re looking for approved answers that amount to groveling admissions that the mods are just a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dufii. Back when I was a mod this was just about the time I would just quietly slip away and let thread eventually die.
The rp topic is in Humble Opinions, missed the edit window. My point still stands, though. Hey, it’s early here! And much frost is on the pumpkin this morning here in the north country.
And not all of the mods are corrupt! (I am pretty sure there is at least one who isn’t )
)