It seems to me that a thread titled “How do you prepare your omelet?” is a poll, and polls in general also go in IMHO.
Don’t most polls provide a number of options to choose from? Wouldn’t that poll require a very large number of same?
At any rate, the idea that factual answers somehow do not belong in IMHO because it is a forum for opinions is weird to me.
Before the vBulletin feature was implemented, all the polls in IMHO were of that form, things like “Help buying a dishwasher” or “Good hand vacuum for kids?” or “What’s your favorite hunting rifle caliber?” or “Are there popular foods you’re tired of?” or “Clothes that make you kick for it” or “What’s the funniest website?” (to pick a few examples of similar threads.) - all polls that don’t have a fixed number of options to choose from.
I see.
And, in fact, that is still where threads like that go – even though polls have been enabled in IMHO, it’s not a requirement of starting a thread there.
It’s a question about how to cook something. I’d say it goes in Cafe Society.
I brought this up in another thread and really did not get a satisfactory response. The IMHO forum description reads as follows:
*
“What’s your favorite …?”** For frank exchanges of views *on less-than-cosmic topics. This is also the place for polling.
If “frank exchanges” are not allowed, then the description needs to be rewritten.
I think what Czarcasm is saying is you can make up whatever you’d like and so long as he agrees with it, it’s okay by him. If however, he doesn’t agree with it, well then there’s a problem. No wonder fighting ignorance is a continual struggle.
[My name]Yup-that’s what I’m saying.[/My Name]
Personally, I like Czarcasm so you all can suck it.
You think certain posters expressed wrongheaded opinions about the dogs in question in those IMHO threads. **Czarcasm ** said he didn’t want the threads hijacked by a debate on the topic. You could have just started a thread in GD and then told the posters in question that you disagreed with their opinions and linked them to your GD thread in order to carry on the debate.
This would have solved your problem. Of course, then you wouldn’t have had an opportunity to feel all beaten down and victimised and wouldn’t have had an opportunity to take a whinyassed shot at someone who disagrees with you about something you feel very strongly about, would it now?
You don’t have to lie to us, it’s okay. Czarcasm bribed you with a bottle of vodka to say that, didn’t he?
No. If you had read for comprehension, that is not what I said.
Again, you haven’t read for comprehension. And no, I don’t think it’s “whinyassed” to complain when a moderator bullies one poster but gives other posters, who have done the same thing as the poster he bitched out, free reign. If you think that’s fine, well then you and Czarcasm can be partners in mediocrity.
Do you deny that you or anyone else who wanted to debate pitbulls could have done what I said?
If you think what **Czarcasm ** “bitched out” anyone in that thread, you ain’t seen nuthin’, petal.
Furthermore, if **Czarcasm **was not perfectly even handed in that thread (and I note you say this but don’t give any specific links) then that’s because he’s a good enough moderator to know that there are certain hotbutton controversies that will derail a thread faster than a sleeper across the tracks, while many other controversies will not. You are not new enough here to be able to plead ignorance of this.
This creates a need for the mods to be a bit more heavy handed about enforcing the letter of the law when certain controversies come up. It would be a problem if there weren’t other forums in which threads can be specifically started about the controversies in question. Why not go start such a thread instead of whining? What are you interested in, really?
Of course. But what does that have to with anything? There’s no logic in what you’ve written. I can start a thread about X or Y or Z but how does that absolve a moderator when he’s rude to a poster but not to other posters who have committed the same offense?
He’s a moderator. He should treat all posters equally. As I said before, if you disagree with this then you and Czarcasm can hold hands and take long walks on the beach together.
I did give specific links. They’re in my first post. Again, try reading for comprehension.
I think he should treat all posters equally. I think it’s a shame you obviously disagree with this.
I’m interested in posters being treated equally. I have no other agenda. What’s yours?
It means you and others have an outlet for what you want to say. It’s pretty obvious what the relevance is.
No you gave links to entire threads. Link to or quote posts. I’m not going to go trawling through multipage threads to find your evidence for you.
I don’t disagree. What is being explained to you is that he doesn’t treat all topics equally, and why this is necessary moderating. Sorry if this doesn’t fit your need to whine about being treated unfairly.
Sorry. Just because someone can start a thead in a given forum does not mean a moderator should then be able to treat posters unequally. The former does not excuse the latter.
I gave a link to the threads because they should be read in their entirety. And I dont care whether not you go “trawling” nor did I ask you to find “evidence” for me. How extraordinarily narcissistic is it that you believe I should prove anything to you or that your opinion is somehow of relevance to me. Allow me to reassure you, I don’t and it isn’t. I am under no illusion that Czarcasm will be forced to change his poor moderation skills. I do, however, want it on the record that if a moderator is not capable of treating all posters equally then that person should not be a moderator.
I don’t need anything “explained” to me and if you believe that some topics and some posters are less equal than other posters and other topics that is of no relevance to me. That said, if you had read for comprehension, you would see that I wasn’t “whining” about being “treated unfairly.” I complained that Czarcasm was rude to one poster but allowed other posters a license to commit the same offense. I have explained this to you multiple times now and yet you keep coming back with the same spin so I think it’s fairly obvious what your agenda is and replying to you is fruitless. I’m sorry if I’m not going to give you the opportunity to defend Czarcasm’s honor anymore. It’s cute if creepy that you’re so vociferous in his defense, I’m sure he’s touched.
I have read the entire thread, (and providing links to posts does not prevent that, in any way), and I have found no evidence of the claims you have made. If you are going to make accusations against a Mod for bad behavior, then it is incumbent on you to indicate where that bad behavior occurred. If you cannot be bothered to do that, then the rest of us should feel no compulsion to believe that you are not just making up your claims.
I suspect that an example of narcissism (or some other ego related issue), is better displayed by a poster who declares something to be true but that we should simply accept his undocumented word on the topic.
Every post I saw from Czarcasm was a call for all posters to continue expressing their opinions without getting into a debate or to open a separate thread in which to debate the topic. Your claims appear to be groundless posturing over your own opinion that someone’s ox might be gored.
Do you actually have evidence to suggest otherwise?
When the complaints include adding that the people who don’t back pits are wrong headed or lying. it is not hard to see why a moderator who is not a pit fan could come under fire. Time for many grains of salt.
Bolding for emphasis. Please, please, please… PLEASE get a new shtick. When people say it ONCE in a thread it’s annoying enough. For you to say it four times in such a short thread is pretty bad. Perhaps you could work on some other insults to work into your repertoire?