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.
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.
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 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 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 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?
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”.
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.
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?
Yes, and I’ve said all this - either in this thread or the one which spawned it.
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?
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 Debates. 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.
Yes, I feel it was appropriate to close the MPSIMS thread.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
Just because something is infrequent doesn’t mean it sticks out in the mind.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 twickstermight 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.
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.
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.”
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
: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.
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.
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…
