# What are the rules/etiquette for responding in GQ? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 12, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595 "2006-01-12T00:51:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/1 "2006-01-12T00:51:23Z")
I was reading [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353278) thread in GQ and saw these answers to the OP’s question: > [@acsenray](#): > > What proportion of your fellow passengers do you suspect of packing feces in their luggage? > [@tremorviolet](#): > > You know, at some point, you either have to let it go or go live in a bubble with Howard Hughes. > [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > I think this qualifies as a phobia rather than a legitimate, rational concern. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > Agreed. This is just an example of focusing on something that seems icky to some while ignoring its trivial nature in the overall scheme of things. It does sound like bubble talk. I’m curious, are these sort of answers proper under GQ rules and/or etiquette? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/2 "2006-01-12T01:12:15Z")
Two moderators posted in that thread without giving any warnings, so it would appear so. IME, it’s OK to be a little snarky when faced with a stupid or unreasonable question (Cecil is), but it’s not OK is to be rude with little or no provocation. Obviously, this is not an official ruling, and it’s probably void in Kansas. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/3 "2006-01-12T01:30:33Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Two moderators posted in that thread without giving any warnings, so it would appear so. > > IME, it’s OK to be a little snarky when faced with a stupid or unreasonable question (Cecil is), but it’s not OK is to be rude with little or no provocation. Obviously, this is not an official ruling, and it’s probably void in Kansas. But I thought the purpose was “fighting ignorance” or something similar. For the life of me I cannot see how this > [@](#): > > Searching Luggage: Sanitary? or > [@](#): > > Does anyone know more about this practice? turns into the snark the OP mentions here. What it did do was invite a group of posters who wanted to show they earned there psychology degree by saying such words of wisdom as > [@](#): > > You know, at some point, you either have to let it go or go live in a bubble with Howard Hughes. > [@](#): > > I think this qualifies as a phobia rather than a legitimate, rational concern. > [@](#): > > I don’t go around seeking other people’s feces either, but I also accept that Life Has Germs It did not answer her OP in the least bit, it showed a “I am better then you and your feelings do not match my brilliance” attitude. If the question was stupid or unreasonable it need not be answered by them. If it was a question they wanted to answer they could of spent some time looking into if it was un-sanitary and answered, yes it is and here is why, or no it is not here is why. And of course they could of started a pit thread “Pitting brightpenny for bubble living” All the unsolicitated medical advice was not needed IMHO of course. As for the two mods posting there and saying nothing, the last time I checked becoming a mod does not make one infallible. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/4 "2006-01-12T03:04:54Z")
> [@Abbie Normal](#): > > It did not answer her OP in the least bit, it showed a “I am better then you and your feelings do not match my brilliance” attitude. If the question was stupid or unreasonable it need not be answered by them. If it was a question they wanted to answer they could of spent some time looking into if it was un-sanitary and answered, yes it is and here is why, or no it is not here is why. And of course they could of started a pit thread “Pitting brightpenny for bubble living” > > All the unsolicitated medical advice was not needed IMHO of course. As for the two mods posting there and saying nothing, the last time I checked becoming a mod does not make one infallible. If you really expect that people in GQ are going to completely restrict themselves to absolutely factual answers, you will be sadly disappointed. I didn’t think the responses were particularly insulting - perhaps slightly snarky, but nothing that would remotely imply anyone thought a pitting was appropriate. I would point out that the OP herself responded, _not_ with a request that the discussion be kept purely factual, but rather with a rather extended discourse about her own opinion of the matter: > [@brightpenny](#): > > I guess what bothers me most about the searching procedure is the lack of courtesy. It’s justs now dawning upon me that an entire generation is growing up accustomed to and even relaxed about various intrusions upon privacy, both physical and electronic: from body searches at concerts, to government eavesdropping, to airport searches, to internet spyware, overpopulation, traffic, and advanced medical technology. While some of these “intrusions” are welcome in an effort to be healthier, I wonder whether the threshold for indignation at intrusion of privacy has been lowered overall in the general population. IMHO, taken to its extreme, this could make us ripe for dictatorship or theocracy. > > It’s horrible enough that some stranger is pawing through our things, but if he/she must do so, then the lack of a courteous glove-changing is just a further insult. While I recognize the delay that would cause, there might be some other way to ensure minimum intrusiveness. ---
**Author:** ![wonderlust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonderlust/32/7237_2.png) [@wonderlust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderlust)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/5 "2006-01-12T03:09:50Z")
Thank you to the other members who noticed me strung up in a tree. I was the OP. Only at the end was there a response appropriate to my question, from an airline employee. The snarkiness began immediately and escalated without provocation. At first I clarified, then tried to play good sport, then eventually conceded that my question might not be of great import, and probably should be rephrased and posted in IMHO. I even described how my thinking was evolving with the discussion. And yet I was told I failed the open-minded test. ??? _Not one of them provided their **cherished cite** for their comments, nor provided any factual info that I asked for_ I reminded them that I was not in The Pit nor in Great Debates, and that I only posted in GQ because I thought people were treated more respectfully here. I tried to diplomatically ask if it was their intent to collectively chase out someone with a question, and when I eventually quit the board they snarked at me “on my way out”. I would think the behavior in that thread would scare away any timid soul like me who dared to ask a question. Does that promote learning, inquisitiveness, community even? It felt like a gang rape. I really thought of this place as my home community and didn’t deserve to be treated this way. I was meeting some really special friends here, and now I’ve lost that. I couldn’t believe that much of the behavior was by Charter Members, as if it was condoned or encouraged. Fighting ignorance doesn’t work like this. I’m not stupid, I’m bright and questioning. If you’re trying to fight ignorance, don’t do it this way. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/6 "2006-01-12T03:12:09Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > If you really expect that people in GQ are going to completely restrict themselves to absolutely factual answers, you will be sadly disappointed. I didn’t think the responses were particularly insulting - perhaps slightly snarky, but nothing that would remotely imply anyone thought a pitting was appropriate. > > **I would point out that the OP herself responded, _not_ with a request that the discussion be kept purely factual, but rather with a rather extended discourse about her own opinion of the matter** : \*bolding mine IMHO that was an attempt at deflecting the snark. They where throwing snark out at her at a rate she was probably quite upset, and she responded with that to protect herself from any further attempts at throwing her in a bubble. ---
**Author:** ![wonderlust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonderlust/32/7237_2.png) [@wonderlust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderlust)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/7 "2006-01-12T03:15:21Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I would point out that the OP herself responded, _not_ with a request that the discussion be kept purely factual, but rather with a rather extended discourse about her own opinion of the matter: In context you’ll see that this was after they made me feel like a fool for asking the original question, and so I was trying to concede or expand to an issue of more general relevance. In other words, to stop the attacks. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/8 "2006-01-12T03:18:34Z")
> [@Abbie Normal](#): > > As for the two mods posting there and saying nothing, the last time I checked becoming a mod does not make one infallible. But it certainly gives them the right and the obligation to call out inappropriate behavior where they see it. Given that they didn’t, we must assume this was within the rules. ---
**Author:** ![wonderlust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonderlust/32/7237_2.png) [@wonderlust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderlust)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/9 "2006-01-12T03:21:20Z")
And you know what? I didn’t rant about the airlines, or go off about security searches. The point of my OP was **fact-seeking before drawing conclusions**. I was trying to find out if my own reactions to the gloves/search thing were reasonable based upon the facts, or whether I had missed some crucial aspect of search protocol that would put my mind more at ease. \*I think that’s exactly what this site is supposedly trying to promote. \* ---
**Author:** ![wonderlust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonderlust/32/7237_2.png) [@wonderlust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderlust)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/10 "2006-01-12T03:26:25Z")
I think there’s more than rules that need to be considered. This was mean-spirited bullying. What happened to decent treatment of decent people? Is SDMB above that? I wish a mod would speak to this, because if this is all okay by them, then I’m ashamed to be a paying member, even one who quit. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/11 "2006-01-12T03:31:39Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > But it certainly gives them the right and the obligation to call out inappropriate behavior where they see it. Given that they didn’t, we must assume this was within the rules. Going by this standard is a fools way to banned land. Using your measuring stick, a moderator would always read every post in every thread they post in. So if I would slip a racist insult into a long drawn out post that does not get reported, but a mod moves it from IMHO to GD it is from that moment on it is acceptable? I think not, I give the moderators the benefit of not reading that whole thread. I am a glass is half full kind of guy. But your post does bring out a better question/comment, and that is if that snark was with-in the rules, the rules need changed to something quite easy such as: In General Questions if you do not have the answer to the question, or no interest in the question, do not post in the thread. See simple really. If I was an idiot, with no IQ on my side whatsoever and I paid my money to ask the question “What is 2 plus 2” you can pit me for being an idiot but do not answer my question with “You’re on the verge of being in Sling Bladeish land” ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/12 "2006-01-12T04:10:50Z")
> [@brightpenny](#): > > I think there’s more than rules that need to be considered. This was mean-spirited bullying. What happened to decent treatment of decent people? Is SDMB above that? If you think _that_ was mean-spirited bullying, you haven’t spent much time on the Internet. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/13 "2006-01-12T04:21:09Z")
No offense you two (if two you really are), but that was very light-handed treatment for this board. The fact that there is an attempt to engage in discourse about the actual facts of matters does not in any way imply that there is a desire to do so in a polite fashion. I try to avoid too much oughtright hostility, but there is nothing in the Boards rules that require politeness. If that’s what you are looking for, I recommend an early exit to save your blood pressure. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Uvula\_Donor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e19adc/32.png) [@Uvula\_Donor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uvula_Donor)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/14 "2006-01-12T04:28:08Z")
> [@brightpenny](#): > > It felt like a gang rape. Did it now? Perhaps your sensibilities are rather too tender for the internet. ---
**Author:** ![wonderlust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonderlust/32/7237_2.png) [@wonderlust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderlust)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/15 "2006-01-12T04:47:15Z")
Excuse me? We pick and choose our communities, and if you enjoy mean-spirited ambushes, then you will have found your share on the internet. However, perhaps it may be news to you that not all people, hence not the entire internet, is (trying really hard not to name-call here) the way you seem to think it is. I thought I found a place where intelligent discussion was encouraged. It became clear to me that many members enjoy the “sport” of bullying and nastiness. That’s why I steer clear of The Pit and Great Debates, where such types like to play, and it’s expected that such will occur. It was my understanding that the other forums here make an effort to support a broad range of thought without the environment of incipient attack. There were forums at SDMB where we didn’t have to look over our shoulders and carefully word every post, so as not to get jumped on. That had been my experience until last night. I will never support meanness for the enjoyment of meanness, and that’s what I saw then and just now, here too. Is there some reason you intend to make this entire forum (or the entire internet?) into a place of pure nastiness? **Could someone please inform me which forums on SDMB are considered “safe” for those of us who don’t want to play juvenile mean-spirited power games? If there are no forums which expect that members be treated respectfully, then will a mod please say so here, so the rest of us can make an informed choice about membership?** ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/16 "2006-01-12T05:08:36Z")
**brightpenny** , leave it be. At this point your arguments are completely irrelevant to the main point, which is that you are coming across as a humorless yahoo who asks dumb questions in GQ and cannot brook the odd comments such bizarre queries usually garner. Just step down and let this thread die. It cannot improve from here. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/17 "2006-01-12T09:40:57Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > No offense you two (if two you really are), but that was very light-handed treatment for this board. Two “If two you really are”? I think, no I am pretty sure that is discouraged as well. Just all sorts of not giving a shit eh. If you want to accuse me of something do not be coy, or better yet use the report button. > [@](#): > > The fact that there is an attempt to engage in discourse about the actual facts of matters Medical help is **discouraged** diagnosing someone is a piece of medical advice and in no way answered the question. Which did have a factual answer, not sure what the answer is, but neither did the snark herd in the thread. You say they where in engaged in discourse about the facts? I did not see but a couple in that thread talking about (or giving a cite) that showed the amount of fecal matter transferable from underwear, did you? Because that was the question… > [@](#): > > does not in any way imply that there is a desire to do so in a polite fashion. I try to avoid too much oughtright hostility, but there is nothing in the Boards rules that require politeness. Do not be a jerk. > [@](#): > > If that’s what you are looking for, I recommend an early exit to save your blood pressure. 🙂 No if that is what she is looking for avoid the pit and GD, not GQ… ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/18 "2006-01-12T10:08:57Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Two moderators posted in that thread without giving any warnings, so it would appear so. I noticed that, that’s why I didn’t restrict the question in the OP to rules, but also mentioned etiquette. That is, GQ threads may have a certain etiquette that you may be able to go against without violating any official rules. > [@](#): > > IME, it’s OK to be a little snarky when faced with a stupid or unreasonable question (Cecil is), but it’s not OK is to be rude with little or no provocation. A little snarky is OK, but I thought what happened in that thread was a little excessive. I read GQ occasionally and don’t remember this sort of response to a factual question. Can you find other GQ threads with this level of snark directed at the OP? A quick look at the current GQ threads shows nothing of the sort, only the general civility usually present in most GQ threads. As I said, most probably rules were not broken, but if all GQ responses were so antagonistic, then people would be reluctant to post questions because almost any question can be perceived as stupid or unreasonable by someone. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/19 "2006-01-12T13:55:44Z")
Not that I’m encouraging being snarky for snarkiness’ sake in GQ, but you really should re-read some of Cecil’s columns if you want to see questions being answered with disdain. > [@brightpenny](#): > > It felt like a gang rape. No, no it didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595/20 "2006-01-12T13:58:23Z")
> [@brightpenny](#): > > It felt like a gang rape. Did it now? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-rules-etiquette-for-responding-in-gq/339595.md?page=2)