I did see that response, and I agree this was not a thread that backfired. Let me put it this way: perhaps you didn’t mean anything by it, but your directive really was a bit presumptuous. And putting that to one side, we still usually don’t do closures on request.
Sorry- I won’t be convinced unless you can rebut my statements with an example of a retired moderator digging in his or her heels from 2005.
BobDucca, the policy is this: we use our discretion in evaluating requests for thread closures. if you are unhappy with the way a thread you started is going, you can ask that it be closed. We’ll probably say no, but we will close the thread if we agree it’s a good idea - for example if the topic has completely changed, the issue has been resolved, few people are participating in the discussion, or the OP has realized the thread was a bad idea (and we agree that it was). In the Pit, the chances that your request will be honored are somewhat lesser because it’s the Pit and when you post there, you run the risk of having a thread blow up in your face. There is no hard and fast rule like ‘we close threads at the OP’s request’ or ‘we don’t close threads at the OP’s request.’
There is one thread that’s been a Pitting of SA on his ‘paper towel defense’ for a long, long time now and which has run to dozens of pages. A second thread was started. It was Pitting SA on his ‘paper towel defense’. Then it was merged with the original. This is obviously [insert pejorative]. It obviously shows [pejorative phrase] about the mod(s) who obviously [verb + pejorative].
I have the solution.
Here the the solution to entire issue.
I am surprised that people around here that are way smarter than me haven’t already suggested it.
Ready?
Here it is, the total solution Rename the pit. The new name? Calvinball. Do this and every mod action makes perfect sense.
So no rules were broken. The thread was getting only non-hijack posts. It was not a duplicate thread even though it dealt in general with the same subject matter. There was no need for any moderation at all or for you even to read it. But you decided to kill it out of annoyance. Ok got it.
I guess Escher should open in ATMB a poll not using the polling feature on the issue of whether or not the non-poll poll thread should have been closed.
If you don’t like the fit of the shoes, you can always try another pair you know? You aren’t the one who did the deed in this case. But, if those aren’t wagons I’d like to know the new name for them, and what differing features they have that I didn’t spot upon first sight.
Doesn’t seem right to me, that people should be told explicitly to start a pit thread, and one was started, and merged with flawed reasoning behind it! And now other moderators are here helping make excuses. STOP! You don’t have to come in here and say anything. Go talk amongst yourselves, find your bearings, THEN come read and listen. If, the problem is that it was still a kind-of sort-of poll, THEN SAY SO DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY! Sheesh! :dubious:
Seems to me, that your first reaction was to come here and speak up, and it is just making things worse. Take a moment please? Try to tilt the problem the way the posters are seeing it, and consider what you’d think and how you’d feel. If it (another moderator’s action) is mistaken, it just is. Don’t make excuses, and entrench yourself. Admit it (maybe make good by not merging the next thread if there is one) and we can all move on. I at least can respect that. I think there are plenty enough others that can as well.
Curiosity. I see others chiming in when a question is asked of the mods, and I figure that(as a reg’lar poster, just like you) I have the same right as anyone else here to do so.
Am I mistaken in assuming so?
We have been discussing this by email and I appreciate the implication that I’ve been speaking without thinking and am unable to admit fault. Thank you. I understand the issue here: the IMHO thread was closed because it was just not a good fit for that forum given the topic and the way that topic has been discussed for the last year, and posters were told to start a Pitting if they wanted to talk about this issue. A Pit thread was opened, and it was then merged into the very long already-existing Pit thread about PSU and Starving Artist. I get that people feel they were given unclear or contradictory instructions. I don’t think the mod actions were incorrect (sorry, RedFury, it is the exact same topic) but I understand that some communication between the mods could have spared people a little confusion here. I also think this is not something to get worked up over. What exactly was lost by merging the new thread where people are bashing Starving Artist over his opinions on Joe Paterno with the old thread where people are bashing Starving Artist over his opinions on Joe Paterno? I’m going to go out on a limb and say nothing.
If you have a personal issue with another poster, take it to the Pit.
Don’t feel like looking it up (and since I’m not saying anything bad I don’t think I have to) but I seem to recall at least a couple of times when Miller has admitted to being hasty and stated he was wrong.
Same general subject matter but not duplicate. How many threads are there currently about the debate? Or the election in general? Or any other big issue. As long as they have a slightly different focus on the issue those threads are allowed and should be. The new thread had a very specific purpose separate from the existing one. If it got hijacked you could have stepped in. Or let it run its course. I have no idea what the possible harm could be. And no rules were being broken. No mod action or attention required. It annoyed you so you reacted.
That’s gold. Czarcasm’s question goes through without comment. Fenris’s question to czarcasm gets a direction to take it to the pit. You guys are becoming a parody.
