Why was this thread closed?

[Colibri]

@Fenris

I’ll try not to. Can you not be disingenuous? Czarcasm made up rules for that thread that were contrary to longstanding rules on this board. Trying to pretend that those rules were somehow reasonable or have any precedent or accusing someone who questions these new rules as being “ridiculous” strikes me as an iffy debating technique.

Czarcasm’s instructions for that thread were not contrary to the rules of the board. And claiming you think that his instructions were intended to apply across the entire board is highly disingenuous on your part. Your own exaggeration and misrepresentation of what actually happened doesn’t indicate any great concern about debating technique.

Then he could have said “Dial it back please” or something similar which would have at least avoided the problem of made-up rules that contradict board rules and custom.

He didn’t make up any rules. Your continued reiteration of this doesn’t make it true.

Of course, the other problem was that there was nothing to dial back. Have you even read the thread? One use of the word “puke”, one use of the word “shit” and one use of the word “fuck”, none of which were directed at the poster who started the thread is about as benign as it gets in a heated thread.

I get it. It was a “heated thread,” but there was nothing to dial back.

[Garfield226]

@Czarcasm

Peter Morris, do not bother PMing me again, since you seem to have no concept as to what Private Message means. You didn’t even bother to ask if I minded if you posted our exchange.

He didn’t need to.

[

@TubaDiva

Although it’s called a “private” message, remember that once it is sent, the sender has no more control over its further use and distribution than he or she would a public posting on the message board. There is no guarantee of privacy in these messages, and you assume the risk that any PM you send might be made public by the recipient.

](Private messages are not necessarily confidential - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board)

Unless you’re making up another rule here?

[Peter_Morris]

@Czarcasm

Peter Morris, do not bother PMing me again, since you seem to have no concept as to what Private Message means. You didn’t even bother to ask if I minded if you posted our exchange.

I don’t have to ask. It has been established in previous threads that PM’s may be published.

Private messages are not necessarily confidential

TubaDiva said that. And she is superior to you. Are you disagreeing with her?

Here’s a long threadwhere some member complained about a moderator publishing comments in a PM. The consensus of the moderators and administrators was that permission to publish PM’s is not needed.
Edit: Thank you Garfield226

[Derleth]

@Czarcasm

Peter Morris, do not bother PMing me again, since you seem to have no concept as to what Private Message means. You didn’t even bother to ask if I minded if you posted our exchange.

So… you can explain a rule in a forum where only one poster knows the explanation, and punish that poster for ever revealing it to anyone else?

You are Franz Kafka, and I demand my £10.

[Fenris]

@Colibri

Czarcasm’s instructions for that thread were not contrary to the rules of the board. And claiming you think that his instructions were intended to apply across the entire board is highly disingenuous on your part. Your own exaggeration and misrepresentation of what actually happened doesn’t indicate any great concern about debating technique.

Dude, I’ve asked like 4 times now if these were new rules for the board or IMHO or what. There’s no freaking info in that thread whatsoever.

And “misrepresentation”? I posted his exact words and the relevant naughty words that so offended his delicate sensibilities. I’m not the one who posted half of what Czarcasm said, omitting the relevant part in order to try to make his mod note look less idiotic/arbitrary.

He didn’t make up any rules. Your continued reiteration of this doesn’t make it true.

Fine. I can show you where Zotti specifically said that profanities (except for a limited few usages) are legal. Where Zotti point-blank says (paraphrased, but close) that this is a board for adults and the few banned words/phrases are limited and precise.

I can probably dig up cites to show where other mods have said that profanity is just fine, as long as it’s not extreme. You show me, anywhere in the rules where a mod can just wave his hand and by fiat say “This is a magical no-swearing thread. Oh, and you can’t attack people’s posts, either”. THOSE WERE HIS INSTRUCTIONS “I’m going to reopen this thread under the condition that any swearing or “puking” be done over in The BBQ Pit.”–his words, unedited.

No amount of denial on your part can change that. This is [i[new* and a terrible precedent. I defy you to show me earlier examples for these specific mod instructions. (Note: not “Tone down/dial back” the swearing–no swearing whatsoever, and no attacking people’s posts.)

I get it. It was a “heated thread,” but there was nothing to dial back.

:rolleyes:
Oh good lord. I never thought you were one to play bullshit word-parsing games, but if you’re going to, fine. Please allow me to rephrase as your “gotcha” has wounded me to the quick.

"Of course, the other problem was that there was nothing to dial back. Have you even read the thread? One use of the word “puke”, one use of the word “shit” and one use of the word “fuck”, none of which were directed at the poster who started the thread is about as benign as it gets in any potentially heated thread. "

All better? Now how about you quit playing coy, and answer the substance of my concerns, rather than playing silly word games.

1. Are these new rules for the entire SDMB site or just IMHO?

2. If it’s for this thread only, can you show me other threads where posters are specifically ordered not to post ANY profanity or make ANY attack on a user’s posts? Because, as I quoted (in full…not conveniently truncated) those were the rules he posted.

3. If you can’t produce cites showing me where “No profanity” and “No attacking other people’s posts” rules have been regularly used, please explain when bizarre mod-instructions that contradicts specific guidance from Ed and 11 years of precedent would be appropriate? What would be out of bounds?

How the fuck are we supposed to post and follow the rules if you guys are going to pull rules out of your collective asses any time you feel like? (Actually that’s not fair-the vast, vast majority of mods here do a great job and don’t make up rules on the fly.)

[armedmonkey]

The “how dare you publish my messages!” is continued childishly bad form from Czarcasm.

I’m not surprised.

[Czarcasm]

@Czarcasm

Peter Morris, do not bother PMing me again, since you seem to have no concept as to what Private Message means. You didn’t even bother to ask if I minded if you posted our exchange.

Let me add that I know that what he did was allowed according to rules of the board…but that doesn’t mean that I have to like it. It means that I cannot trust that he would ever keep any correspondence private, no matter what he claimed. I have never divulged any correspondence that someone related to me privately on this board or any other, and I would hope that if someone were asked to speak privately on a matter with me, and they were not inclined to do so, they would have the decency to back away from the deal. A simple “I’m sorry, but this is something that must be discussed in public, so I’ll only discuss it there” is something I understand, and even respect. What happened in this case, I cannot.

I repeat. No rules were broken-just a sense of decorum that maybe just existed in my head.

[Derleth]

Czarcasm: I’ll reiterate what I see as my main point, without allusion this time.

You are disinclined to explain yourself in open thread, and will only do it in PM. You then get annoyed when people put your PM’d explanations into an open thread. This creates a scenario where your rules are destined to be unexplained and unpredictable to the majority of the people responsible for following them.

This is not what the SDMB has been in my experience.

There’s another forum, the Something Awful forum, where it costs $10 to get in and get banned. You can get banned for anything, or nothing, and nothing is explained. You can probably get banned for asking for an explanation.

I certainly appreciate that you’re willing to follow the rules laid down regarding the publicness of PMs. I can also appreciate that you wished PMs were private. However, I cannot appreciate you wanting rule explanations and the processes that generate specific rules to be kept private.

If I wanted an experience like that, I’d pony up the $10 to become a Something Awful Goon. At least their threads have inline images.

[Cyros]

@Czarcasm

It means that I cannot trust that he would ever keep any correspondence private, no matter what he claimed.

I am not seeing anywhere that he promised to keep this exchange private.

[Ostrya]

Czarcasm quote from “private” exchange:

As was already said, that would involve private discussions among the moderators and other information that you are not currently privy to. I guess you’ll just have to trust our judgment on this one.

then he says this..

Peter Morris, do not bother PMing me again, since you seem to have no concept as to what Private Message means. You didn’t even bother to ask if I minded if you posted our exchange.

So in the private exchange, Czarcasm says “sorry, can’t tell you! It’s private!”

Then after exchange was posted, he says, “I don’t appreciate you posting the exchange! It’s private!”

Does this fit the definition of irony? Or just plain stupid.

[Peter_Morris]

@Czarcasm

Let me add that I know that what he did was allowed according to rules of the board..

Don’t even try that. It’s obvious that you did not know, until the rules were explained to you.

.but that doesn’t mean that I have to like it. It means that I cannot trust that he would ever keep any correspondence private, no matter what he claimed.

Since we’re talking about trust, consider the following: You, Czarcasm, gave the following instruction “If you have any other questions, please PM me.” You then followed it with a promise that you “can guarantee that [we] would get an answer.”

Well, I sent you the PM you wanted, and the only answer I got from you was a refusal to give me information. I gave you an opportunity to make good on your promise. You failed to honour it. You, not I, betrayed the trust between us. It means that nobody can ever trust you, no matter what you claim. And I have no hesitation in revealing it to the board.

As for you refusing to accept any PMs from me, it doesn’t make any difference considering that you never answered them in the first place.

[perfectparanoia]

As the OP to this train wreck, while I disagreed with the closure of the thread, I have now received more than enough information to understand what happened and the thread was reopened. If the thread were now closed, you would see no arguments from me.

Thanks. PP

[Czarcasm]

@perfectparanoia

As the OP to this train wreck, while I disagreed with the closure of the thread, I have now received more than enough information to understand what happened and the thread was reopened. If the thread were now closed, you would see no arguments from me.

Thanks. PP

I think the thread is doing just fine without its creator right now-I don’t plan to close it.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@the lone cashew

So in the private exchange, Czarcasm says “sorry, can’t tell you! It’s private!”

Then after exchange was posted, he says, “I don’t appreciate you posting the exchange! It’s private!”

Does this fit the definition of irony? Or just plain stupid.

Neither, IMO.

[Irishman]

@TubaDiva

The thread should probably be closed anyway as the OP has been banned. That along with Czarcasm’s note to you above should be enough for people to understand what has happened here. If not or if you prefer talking to me send me a PM or an email and I will answer you. (Might be later this evening but I will answer you.)

@the lone cashew

Why shouldn’t the thread be left open allowing others to discuss? Is this a new standard to close threads started by banned posters?

Threads are often closed when the posters are trolling or sock puppets. This is not new.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9034110#post9034110

If you have a question about a thread or poster who “disappeared,” please DO NOT post an inquiry. In probably 95% of such cases, the thread (or poster) that vanished was an attention-seeker – a spammer , sock, or troll. They’re out for any attention, even negative attention, and we don’t want to give it to them. They disappear, as do their posts. And as do posts about them.

So, if you have a question about such, please email a moderator. DO NOT post your question. DO NOT give these folks any publicity, acknowledgement, or recognition.

So Czarcasm told the person to go away, and then answered this thread with an instruction that if you want an answer, to PM him. And yet people continue to whine in this thread about why he won’t answer the question in the thread, even though this stated policy is right there for everyone to see. Geez, people, read the fricken rules already.

@A Monkey With a Gun

What is with the constant refusal to explain moderator actions inside the forum whose purpose is to air complaints? Why must everything be a PM?

’

If you have a question about a thread or poster who “disappeared,” please DO NOT post an inquiry. In probably 95% of such cases, the thread (or poster) that vanished was an attention-seeker – a spammer , sock, or troll. They’re out for any attention, even negative attention, and we don’t want to give it to them. They disappear, as do their posts. And as do posts about them.

So, if you have a question about such, please email a moderator. DO NOT post your question. DO NOT give these folks any publicity, acknowledgement, or recognition.

@A Monkey With a Gun

The “how dare you publish my messages!” is continued childishly bad form from Czarcasm.

You know, when a Mod explicitly says he is not answering in the thread, but will answer in a PM, that kinda suggests there’s a reason he didn’t want to post publically. To disregard that is bad form. There’s nothing gained by posting that PM exchange. No really, Czarcasm answered why the thread was closed - the OP was trolling. The answers he refused to provide in the PM were confidential info from the mod discussion loop. He’s not supposed to reveal that info, even in a PM.

@Derleth

You are disinclined to explain yourself in open thread, and will only do it in PM. You then get annoyed when people put your PM’d explanations into an open thread. This creates a scenario where your rules are destined to be unexplained and unpredictable to the majority of the people responsible for following them.

Did you read the policy I quoted above? Does it make any more sense to you now why Czarcasm asked people to PM instead of continuing to ask in the thread? Or are you just wanting to poke him with a stick some more?

[armedmonkey]

I will reiterate my complaints regarding this:

1.) Czarcasm was doing the exact same thing (snarking the OP), that he cautioned others not to do. It smacks of hypocrisy. I don’t care if the OP is a troll, he probably was, but a moderator can not give instructions to posters not to snark at the troll when the moderator is doing it himself.

2.) The request for PM’s was an obvious tactic to avoid admitting a mistake.

3.) His behavior in doing so was childish. After he unlocked the thread, he needlessly and childishly complained that no one had posted in it or PM’ed him even though it was less than an hour. What kind of an adult is that impatient?

4.) When he was finally PM’ed, he did not provide the answers as promised, nor did he admit a mistake. He used circular reasoning and avoidance. Again, it’s childish.

5.) When this exchange was posted, he AGAIN childishly whined in this thread, even though he should know that the posting was well within the rules.

This whole thing could have been avoided if Czarcasm had just manned up on the very first post in this thread. “I am going to reopen the thread in question while the mods confer about the original poster. I should not have closed it with snark. Let’s ALL try to keep it civil and on topic. Any further attacks should be posted in the proper forum.” Easy. Done. But instead, the guy just keeps whining and being a hypocrite.

[Peter_Morris]

@Irishman

So Czarcasm told the person to go away, and then answered this thread with an instruction that if you want an answer, to PM him. And yet people continue to whine in this thread about why he won’t answer the question in the thread, even though this stated policy is right there for everyone to see.

But he failed to follow through on his own stated policy.

You know, when a Mod explicitly says he is not answering in the thread, but will answer in a PM, that kinda suggests there’s a reason he didn’t want to post publically.

But he DIDN’T answer in the PM.

There’s nothing gained by posting that PM exchange.

Of course there’s something to be gained by posting the exchang. It means that Czarcasm was hiding behind the excuse where he promised to reply to PMs. Having shown that he is just as evasive in PMs as he is in the forum, he no longer can use that excuse.

[padabe]

@Irishman

You know, when a Mod explicitly says he is not answering in the thread, but will answer in a PM, that kinda suggests there’s a reason he didn’t want to post publically. To disregard that is bad form. There’s nothing gained by posting that PM exchange. No really, Czarcasm answered why the thread was closed - the OP was trolling. The answers he refused to provide in the PM were confidential info from the mod discussion loop. He’s not supposed to reveal that info, even in a PM.

Did you read the policy I quoted above? Does it make any more sense to you now why Czarcasm asked people to PM instead of continuing to ask in the thread? Or are you just wanting to poke him with a stick some more?

You know, this cloak and dagger business wrt trolls has always struck me as a little silly. But it’s not my sandbox, so no matter. The point of the rule seems to be that the extra attention only encourages them.

Between the abrupt closing of that thread, the opening of this one, and the cryptic re-opening of the original thread and its discussion here, the “no extra attention” ship has pretty much sailed. Stubbornly and pissily clinging to it–to the point of causing a spectacle–isn’t advancing the goal of the original rule. It seems to be a convenient dodge to saying something like, “Yeah, I could’ve handled that better. The OP turned out to be a sock, and I didn’t want him/her to raise any mayhem before I could get an admin slap him with the ban stick. Sorry for any confusion I created in the process.”