# Twickster, a question on a closed thread **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 5, 2009, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073 "2009-12-05T05:14:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/41 "2009-12-06T17:44:01Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > the is issue whether there’s anything to the content of an OP that will lead other people to respond, to be something beyond passive viewers of whatever your link sends them to. Here’s what you don’t seem to get. You don’t get to decide this. The only criteria is whether people actually have some interest and post or if the thread falls off the front page quickly. You have no idea what people might find interesting and discussion worthy. I happened to be interested in the girls with tattoos thread but since you apparently know better than me what I find interesting, there is no opportunity to do so. > [@](#): > > Rule of thumb: If you don’t actually have anything to say about the link you’re posting, probably no one else will either, so think twice about whether it’s worth sharing. Uh huh. Right. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/42 "2009-12-06T17:45:53Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > Possibly I’ve misinterpreted exactly what MPSIMS is supposed to be for. All of us who post here are subject to the whims of the moderators and admins. Some of them are awesome, some well, less awesome. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/43 "2009-12-06T18:06:57Z")
I still disagree with the decision to close that thread. Quite frankly, I have no idea who astro is and what his or her past posting history has been. But that particular OP was no more pointless than dozens of others in the same forum. There was no reason to assume it couldn’t have been an inspiration for others to comment on. And if nobody felt like commenting on it, it would have died on its accord. ---
**Author:** ![Electric\_Warrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@Electric\_Warrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Electric_Warrior)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/44 "2009-12-06T18:54:49Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > One of the rules is that certain posts are too mundane for MPSIMS. Yeah, it’s a nanny rule, but so is “No personal insults” or “Don’t be a jerk.” Adults shouldn’t need any of these rules. > > I personally hate that the mods have the power to lock an ongoing discussion, as I think a board should have room for anything its members want to talk about. But we can’t change it. > > Oh, and twicks, I don’t see a purpose in wrist-slapping someone if they are really breaking the rules. Obviously, locking threads hasn’t worked in the past, so something harsher is necessary to get the poster’s attention. Either enforce it like you would any other rule (allowing punishments to escalate), or don’t enforce it at all. So in your opinion, what _should_ mods do? ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/45 "2009-12-06T21:48:04Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > You have no idea what people might find interesting and discussion worthy. I happened to be interested in the girls with tattoos thread but since you apparently know better than me what I find interesting, there is no opportunity to do so. Well, except that I reopened the thread a day and a half ago. If you had any actual interest, you could go post in it. ---
**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:** [December 6, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/46 "2009-12-06T21:53:45Z")
> [@Electric\_Warrior](#): > > So in your opinion, what _should_ mods do? Well, first off, in the perfect world I was describing, we wouldn’t need them. We’d have a couple administrators to do things with the software (that ordinary Jo won’t know how to do without messing up), but that’s it. In the real world, I would just prefer a more democratic process. Have the rules agreed upon by everyone. Have the mods only enforce those rules. I would prefer that locking a thread be saved for the most egregious cases. While we are always told that we can start a new thread, it never seems to happen. The mods’ action puts a damper on the thread.\* It seems that closing a thread is punishing the innocent with the guilty. At the same time, it’s still just a slap on the wrist unless there’s an opportunity that getting multiple threads killed will lead to escalation\*\*. So the good people feel sad that their thread died, and the bad people don’t care, since they aren’t personally going to be punished. \*Particularly for people like me who are avid thread readers, and not posters. So, even though I want the thread to continue, I don’t have anything in particular to say about it (or nothing substantial) so I can’t justify starting a new thread. I figure this is why threads often don’t get restarted. \*\*Compare a mod note, which if you disregard it, will often lead to a formal warning. It’s one of my favorite tools, actually. Only the people who need to read it will. I mean, I figure I’ve crossed the line a couple times. I already know when I’ve screwed up, so I usually restrict myself from participating in that thread. This means I don’t need the note, and since I’m not looking, I don’t have to read it either. On Preview: I want to also point out that **tacoloco** seems to be talking about a different board. The SDMB has always reserved the right for Mods to make judgment calls that are not explicitly in the rules. Arguing they don’t have the right to do something is, well, stupid. When you signed up for this message board, you agreed to either do what the mods say, or be punished. While we have the right to disagree with their actions, they still have the right to make them. You may not want them to be able to make that decision, but, as you’ve already seen, it is still something they can do. And **Twickster** even indicated it was a long standing tradition, so it’s not like she’s going rogue with power. I do wonder if you actually think all the rules for all the forums are mentioned in the rules threads. The mods have come down very much against that style of thinking. They claim that, the more official rules you have, the more people will try to figure out loopholes. It seems the rules serve more as a guideline for our behavior, rather than an exhaustive collection of all the reasons someone can be punished. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/47 "2009-12-06T22:16:27Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > Well, except that I reopened the thread a day and a half ago. If you had any actual interest, you could go post in it. MOD BURN!!! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/48 "2009-12-06T22:40:56Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > Well, except that I reopened the thread a day and a half ago. If you had any actual interest, you could go post in it. So I’m supposed to go look for a thread you closed when I had no idea it was reopened? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/49 "2009-12-06T22:50:43Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > So I’m supposed to go look for a thread you closed when I had no idea it was reopened? > > :rolleyes: Post #8, my first appearance in this thread: > [@twickster](#): > > …Since there is a clamor for this particular bit of mundane pointlessness to be open, I’ll be happy to unlock the thread. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/50 "2009-12-06T23:08:14Z")
Stop, I beg you, before you kill him! ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/51 "2009-12-06T23:55:23Z")
I’m gonna crawl back under my rock and soothe my sore ass. ---
**Author:** ![padabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@padabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/padabe)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/52 "2009-12-07T00:34:19Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Stop, I beg you, before you kill him! Who, eye-rolling smiley? Pfft, better off without him. My two cents: Wandering around closing threads because a poster has been bugging you for a while now (apparently) comes across as borderline harassment. As far as I can tell, the only thing too mundane for MPSIMS are the post-padding parties. The idea of a mod patrolling MPSIMS looking for insufficiently articulated mundane and pointless thoughts–or worse, keeping a tally of the times the OP doesn’t return–is more than a bit off-putting. Singling someone out for this treatment is just… I dunno how to put it. _“So tell us, **astro** , just how do girls with tattoos make you feel? Hey! Keep it clean, now, mister!”_ I completely support closing link-and-a-quote OPs in other forums, FWIW. I wish the mods would crack down on it a little more as a matter of fact, in _other_ forums. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/53 "2009-12-07T00:41:48Z")
> [@padabe](#): > > As far as I can tell, the only thing too mundane for MPSIMS are the post-padding parties. That’s not quite true. Some other threads are considered too mundane, but it’s rare. I’ve closed a few threads for being too pointless, although I’m not modding in MPSIMS these days, and so have other mods there. ---
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/54 "2009-12-07T02:42:45Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > MPSIMS is, indeed, the place for discussing mundane and pointless stuff, which definitely includes girls with tattoos (though presumably the tattooing process itself involved a point, or at least a needle). Since there is a clamor for this particular bit of mundane pointlessness to be open, I’ll be happy to unlock the thread. > > The reason I closed – not disappeared – the thread (leaving the link intact, I had no problem with it) was specifically because **astro** started it. He has a very, very bad habit of starting OPs with no actual content (and, frankly, I don’t consider “look at this” to be content), and I am involved in a quixotic quest to get him to stop doing it. He’s outlived plenty of mod careers and shows no indication of being any more responsive to me on this issue than he’s been to anyone else, but a mod can dream. > > So: it wasn’t about the subject, it wasn’t a value judgment about the worth of the subject, it wasn’t a prediction about the degree of interest that the thread might have or the number of people for whom it would be of interest – it was solely and exclusively part of my ongoing effort to get **astro** to stop starting threads that consist of nothing more than a link and a “yo.” This has to be the worst modding explanation ever. Only months on the job and you have exceeded all that has gone before. I’ll teach him a lesson be cutting off all discussion. That will show him not to start a thread that cannot be discussed. Damn, Twix, stop trying to read minds, you are not that good at it. Doomed threads will disappear on their own, mods need not kill the already dead. If, just a small maybe if, the thread stays on top, then it’s ok, no matter your prejudices. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/55 "2009-12-07T04:30:05Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > There’s all kinds of mundane and pointless stuff in MPSIMS, always has been, always will be. That’s what the forum is. The issue isn’t levels of profundity (or lack thereof); the is issue whether there’s anything to the content of an OP that will lead other people to respond, to be something beyond passive viewers of whatever your link sends them to. > > Rule of thumb: If you don’t actually have anything to say about the link you’re posting, probably no one else will either, so think twice about whether it’s worth sharing. But a link is content. It’s there, and it has stuff (although that stuff is somewhere else). It may not be content enough for other forums, but in the one explicitly made for general mundanity? It does pass that threshold, IMHO and clearly in the opinions of many others here. And if no-one does bother to click the link and respond, the thread will die without any artificial barriers. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/56 "2009-12-07T05:54:13Z")
That’s pretty much then giving reasoning though not to ban spam-bots that just drop a link and leave. Then we could argue that maybe the spam-bots have a valid link that could be of interest to someone, and could spark discussions. Why ban them for content-less posts? Just because they’re promoting something? ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/57 "2009-12-07T12:54:14Z")
> [@ToeJam](#): > > That’s pretty much then giving reasoning though not to ban spam-bots that just drop a link and leave. > > Then we could argue that maybe the spam-bots have a valid link that could be of interest to someone, and could spark discussions. Why ban them for content-less posts? Just because they’re promoting something? I can only assume this is meant as sarcasm. On the off chance it isn’t, it is pretty easy spot cases like this and it is entirely appropriate to delete those posts. Besides, there must be a rule about posting ads in threads, right? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/58 "2009-12-07T23:58:17Z")
I’m happy that the Mods are trying to discourage this type of posting, because it’s obnoxious. I have noticed that **astro** very often starts (and then abandons) threads that are basically just a link. That’s what [Delicious](http://delicious.com/) is for. This is a message board, and if some people cannot be bothered to post an actual message then they shouldn’t expect to have their threads remain open. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/59 "2009-12-08T01:04:24Z")
> [@ToeJam](#): > > That’s pretty much then giving reasoning though not to ban spam-bots that just drop a link and leave. > > Then we could argue that maybe the spam-bots have a valid link that could be of interest to someone, and could spark discussions. Why ban them for content-less posts? Just because they’re promoting something? > [@tacoloco](#): > > I can only assume this is meant as sarcasm. > > On the off chance it isn’t, it is pretty easy spot cases like this and it is entirely appropriate to delete those posts. Besides, there must be a rule about posting ads in threads, right? Lately, the last year or so, it’s getting increasingly harder to pick up on some of the “bot” posts, some of which are by actual humans(probably working for $10/day). They quite often aren’t posting ads but are “content” spammers. Ah, for the good old days, when you knew what “spam” was. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073/60 "2009-12-08T05:43:23Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Lately, the last year or so, it’s getting increasingly harder to pick up on some of the “bot” posts, some of which are by actual humans(probably working for $10/day). > > They quite often aren’t posting ads but are “content” spammers. > > Ah, for the good old days, when you knew what “spam” was. I’m ignorant about this. What’s the point? What do they get from doing this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-a-question-on-a-closed-thread/520073.md?page=4)