Czarcasm closed a thread about parents and giving up adopted children.
Link: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597282
There were lots of interesting points of view and nothing was getting out of hand.
I would like to know the reasoning please. The mod post merely said:
"Go look up the definition of “adoption”.
Closing thread. "
Maybe it’s being closed for maintenance, and when you return from looking up the definition, it’ll be open again?
Maybe he thought the OP was trolling. She seems to have made a lot of controversial posts in a very short time.
I agree. Usually I either agree with mod actions or am neutral about them, but that is a rather odd closure.
The question might be construed as borderline inflammatory, but the OP was asking an opinion about morality concerning adoption - which had/has nothing to do with “looking up the definition of adoption”.
Poor moderation. Again. By a grumpy and unreasonable Czarcasm
It’s a shame that thread got closed. Whilst the OP might have been a bit naive in wording it ‘what if you don’t like the child’, they brought up the very valid point that there have been cases in the past where an adopted child has been returned and that was definitely worthy of discussion.
I thought it was a pretty fascinating topic as well and was perturbed to see it closed. If it’s reworded or something, could we get another thread on that issue?
No one sweeps in to close threads with high-handed, ill-conceived righteousness quite like Czarcasm.
The thread has been reopened, under the condition that any attacks on the OP be taken to the proper forum. If you have any other questions, please PM me.
Of course, the question remains, if the problem was that people were insulting the OP, why was it closed with the snotty remark about how she should go look up what the word “adoption” means.
Not so sure that was a snotty remark. Had the OP followed the suggestion, the question raised would likely be answered.
Because, as discussed in that very thread, people in real life have attempted and succeeded in “returning” adopted children. The question was the morality of doing so. The definition of adoption doesn’t address that.
To me, it’s an equally condescending way of saying “Google is your friend”.
But that aside, there’s still a total disconnect from “Go look up what adoption means” and the brand new rules “Don’t swear in IMHO” and “Don’t insult the post, either by saying it makes you want to puke” that Czarcasm just now invented.
Since when can’t we insult a post in IMHO? Since when has swearing (except excessively or directly at a poster) against the rules?
And what do those exciting new rules have to do with the OP not doing enough research?
I reopened the thread one hour ago. “Lots of interesting points of view”, “Worthy of discussion”, “Pretty fascinating topic” and other things have been said of that thread(mostly by those who never posted in the thread before I closed it), and yet no one has posted in it since I re-opened it. Also, not one of you have PMed me for info as to what might be going on, as requested in the same post(#9) where I announced the reopening of the thread.
Yeah, 'cause you spoiled the fun… so everyone packed up, went home. (Czarcasm shows up = party over.)
So? Is “at least one post every hour” the criteria that we use to decide if a thread is interesting?
So?
Maybe you should lock it up again citing the age old “No one posted within an hour of my re-opening it” rule.
I didn’t realize previous participation in a thread was a prerequisite for not wanting it closed.
I read a whole shit ton of threads here that I don’t post in. This was one of them.
Rather than expecting anyone to spend time PM’ing, seems more reasonable a moderator take more time donating thought/consideration concerning thread closures and the reason for doing so. In the first place.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s fair. I posted in the thread before it was closed but I haven’t posted again. Mainly because I didn’t have anything else to add yet – I just wanted to see what others’ thoughts were. I don’t think that just because no one else has posted yet, that the thread is automatically invalid.