Czarcasm closed this thread alleging it was a “joke/attack” thread. No one was attacked. Joke threads are a long standing tradition here.
I’d like a citation to a previously existing rule that was broken justifying the thread closure. Not some new rule invented on the spot, but an actual, published rule. I doubt I’ll get a citation, because there is no such rule.
Precedent has been set. Czarcasm has decreed, and apparently the mod loop agrees, that the OP controls his thread in IMHO. Even though established practice prior to the recent fiasco was exactly the opposite. Fine, but that doesn’t mean you can close threads you don’t like, just because you don’t like them. I’d like my thread reopened. I have a few more polls I’ll be starting there. You aren’t going to like them, either. But you need to leave them the hell alone unless you have a cite to a currently existing rule the thread violates.
There’s been no such decree. That hasn’t been the rule in the past, and it won’t be in the future, either. The OP has some input in the direction of the thread and we frequently moderate to keep threads on topic as the situation dictates. We get it, Oakminster - you didn’t like the moderating in the IMHO avatar thread and the ATMB thread that commented on it. This is not a good way to prove your point.
Yes, there needs to be a rule. Unless you’d like to rehash the political bias shown by certain mods yet again? So now, in IMHO, there can be no pro-Conservative or anti-liberal polls? Is that really the kind of board you want to moderate?
I answered questions about the closure after someone asked the questions. Should I have answered those questions before they were asked?
Not all, or even a significant proportion of, thread closures are questioned by posters, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
You know the drill, Oakminster. If you want to dispute a mod’s decisions, start a thread in ATMB and try to make your point rationally. If you want to flame someone, start a Pit thread. Your thread probably could have gone in GD if you were actually interested in the topic. You started that thread because you were trying to prove a point about a moderating decision you didn’t agree with. It was not an attempt to have any kind of serious discussion, it was just a protest. It was a jerk move. So was opening a nearly identical IMHO thread right when you were starting this one.
Myself, I saw your thread akin to two kids in a backseat. One kid (you) has been told to please not touch the other. So rather then touch, you just hold your hand one inch above their body, wavering it there and saying, over and over “What? I’m not touching you? Still not touching you. Still not touching you”…and then when they cry and you get yelled at for it, you go “WHAT?? I never touched him!”
You knew exactly what you were doing with that thread, coming right off of a long kerfuffle about the other closed poll. Acting like you are a poor, misjudged, innocent topic-maker doesn’t become you.
It was a jerkish move started only to see if you could push the boundaries and so you could start this topic when you knew it’d be closed.
Don’t usually see eye-to-eye with Oakminster on much of anything, but I can’t see the harm in letting him have his say, and his fun, in a ludicrous, parodic, not-serious poll. BFD. In a way, I took it as a self-parody, of the way righties enjoy issues to get the answers they want to get.
And given that Czarcasm is the freakin’ king of the oh-so-cutesy “Let’s ask a loaded question to my opponents” type threads, it makes it even more ironic that he closed this.
For instance:
for just a few. Not as blatant as the one he closed, but just as smarmy and the same technique.