Recent Thread Closings Are Pointless

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:11 am

I think unless it's against terms, it shouldn't be closed. If it's still an ongoing discussion, move it to NHB if it's lost Ethics appropriateness.

Agree? Or Disagree?

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:36 am

Abstain.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:28 am

I didn't do it.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:41 am

agreed. why? possibly an ulterior motive..

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:45 am

I don't know what triggered this thread but I agree with Birdseye.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:48 am

because if you want to have your morning sling fest you regurgitated from some right-wing website here... that's fine.

but if you have a your morning sling fest and people are laughing at you... you become the victim.

what a bunch of trash.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:27 pm

If you're going to regurgitate trash from some website and people discuss the ethical / political ramifications of the aforementioned trash, I'll leave it open. If you're going to regurgitate trash from some website and people discuss what an idiot / troll / puppet you are, I'm going to close it. It has nothing to do with who's the "victim" or who's "at fault" -- it simply isn't E&C material any more.

If you want to have a thread dedicated to what an idiot / troll / puppet someone is, *start it* in NHB. Don't take a thread that starts here and drag it off into NHB land. If it's lost its ethics appropriateness, it gets closed -- I'll move a thread if someone accidentally starts it in the wrong forum, or if the discussion legitimately moves toward NHB-level appropriateness while remaining on topic. But, if people intentionally drag it off topic, I'm just going to close it.

My "ulterior motive" is simply to train people to stay on topic. If you want to shift the discussion from "here's some trash I found on a political website" to "you're such an idiot", start a new "you're such an idiot" thread over in NHB and leave the "here's some trash" thread alone.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:57 pm

Is it so hard to move it to the NHB?
People would like to discuss things. You're preventing them.

Check your moderator ego and agenda at the door and make the people happy. Move threads, don't close

If it's not Ethics & Commentary material, MOVE IT! NHB is for the "junk" of the board that people still want to discuss

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 2:45 pm

Stop posting useless ad hominem attacks and closings wouldn't be an issue. If you lack the self-control to discuss a topic civilly, stay out of it. What's causing the closings is thread crappers, not Lothar's moderation.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 2:48 pm

The board police has spoken..

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 2:52 pm

Perhaps Lothar could just eliminate the offending replys and leave the topic open so the more mature members here could more fully discuss the topic at hand.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:26 pm

Phhft. What I said to Woodchip is exactly what I would say to him in person if he were spouting his political views at a LAN. No more, no less.

Sue me. Or ban me. Whatever.

I respect people that think and work towards PEACE.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:30 pm

If it was so worthy of discussion, why don't you just start a new thread, Bird?

Deleting the offending replies on that topic would not prevent it from going off-topic again. If Lothar did that, people would ★■◆● about him deleting replies.

He made a judgement call, and he stands by it. move on.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:35 pm

I have always found it interesting that when some people can not come up with a well reasoned response they turn to name calling. Same "peace loving" people that caused krystelnacht.

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:55 pm

bash wrote:Stop posting useless ad hominem attacks and closings wouldn't be an issue. If you lack the self-control to discuss a topic civilly, stay out of it. What's causing the closings is thread crappers, not Lothar's moderation.

don't listen to bash, he's from Colorado...

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:56 pm

Woodchip, you call entire groups of people names all the time in your posts.

But I concede. I apologize for the names I have called you. I am sure that you're a nice enough man in real life. I just find your partisan zeal disturbing; it represents a growing division in this country between those that believe in diversity and global harmony and those that are increasingly militant and isolationist. If you think the latter is the correct way to run things, you better check your history lessons.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom. Read it.

Again, I *do* sincerely apologize for the name calling. I suppose it boils down to diction and the undisputable fact that I often underestimate the necessity of tact.

Oh well. I say we duke it out in the mines. Isn't that why we're all here?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:27 pm

Of the three threads closed, one was quickly closed because it wandered a bit off topic, one was closed because "it doesn't seem like there's any chance of getting a productive discussion," and the third was closed 2 posts in because, well, I'm not sure why. Nobody was really given a chance to add "commentary."

If your issue is people calling others "idiot / troll / puppet," in threads, perhaps you should mention that when you close those the threads.

Personally, I think all of those threads should have been left open, and maybe warnings given based on whatever criteria you're using. If this is the place where we're going to discuss politics, I think those threads have a place here. Neither was exceptionally viscious or hate filled, nor completely off topic.

I don't see what the problem would be in fullfilling Birds' request to move such threads to NHB. If you don't want them here, ship them there. There's obviously some demand for those particular threads, so whats the problem?

And while I'm doing minor criticism, your closing post from the "Poser" thread was unethical, IMO. You got in the last word by use of your mod powers.

"it's funny that Kerry would record his Vietnam service..." THREAD CLOSED!

If you're going to comment on a topic, it is appropriate to let others comment or rebut before closing.

Of course, it's your gig. You do it however you want.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:57 pm

We have all been here so long, that closing threads to "train people" is pretty much pointless.

It doesn't really matter much, we each have our own styles. Mine is just to ask Ferno how our MP forum is going in chat from time to time.

Heh, anyway, the only criticism that I think is really valid is Vander's last one.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:22 pm

Hey bash, if you and woodchip would think for yourself rather than spouting out the exact policy and spin of the Bush administration, maybe there wouldn't be a problem.

Great post, V. Your point about him closing a thread and slipping in the last word while he was at it is a good one.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:37 pm

woodchip wrote:I have always found it interesting that when some people can not come up with a well reasoned response they turn to name calling.

heh.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:39 pm

Ya know Birds, if you have such a beef with Lothar's actions, why didn't you send him a PM about it? ★■◆● man, if you're that damned irritated about it, then talk to Xciter about it.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:18 pm

The suggestion to cease ad hominem attacks is met with... an ad hominem attack. Classic, Birds.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:46 pm

MP forum has never been better.. because people are having fun in there.

here it's a very ridgid 'stay on topic or else.' mentality.

BTW lothar.. you can't train a person like you can train a dog. the more you try to do it, the more you drive a person away.

hey.. anyone remember when it used to be fun in here?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:54 pm

MD-2389 wrote:Ya know Birds, if you have such a beef with Lothar's actions, why didn't you send him a PM about it? **** man, if you're that damned irritated about it, then talk to Xciter about it.

Because it's a public issue.

Why didn't you send Birds a PM about your irritation at his irritation if you that damn irritated by it? Try spending less time telling other people what to do, Mr. Power Trip

I rarely read Woodchips posts. He's a perfect puppet of one side of the seesaw.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:02 am

Thanks bash. C'mon, you knew you were baiting me for another one. You didn't exactly post much content, so neither did I

Shameful, I know. We've had great discussions before so I don't see why you had to equate my posts to a one liner about attacks. I suppose since you agree with wood it's hard to see some of our views about his recent posting habits.

Perhaps I'll address some of my concerns regarding republican dogma and loyalty in a more substanative thread. I apologize for not posting a more detailed explanation of both my criticism of you and woodchip.

Regarding not sending Lothar a private message, I actually on 2 occasions sent him emails expressing my views. Since he respectfully disagreed, I opened the issue to the public forum.

It's clear that some people would like threads to continue in NHB. There's no reason not to just move them. If you don't like the mindless garbage, don't read it. It's kinda like gay marriage. If you don't like it, don't be gay and get married

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:04 am

cake or death?!

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:14 am

Chipper posts something embarrassing about Kerry and you all flip out on him. Who looks weaker? The messenger or the folks that attack the messenger? In both posts, significant fodder for discussion was presented but the reaction is to immediately try to derail the topic and take a swipe at the topic starter. I would urge Lothar to use *delete* more often than *lock* or else the crappers have won.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:17 am

exactly who is taking a swipe at the poster?

deleting a post because it's been crapped on? bad mojo.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:26 am

I'll write a detailed post in a few days. Perhaps my brevity is because I'm moving (in the same city) and I've been cleaning, boxing, and moving crap the past 48 hours and will be through the weekend.

I see what you're trying to say, but to be short before I post the longer version, woody's posts don't seem to have much content to me. They come off as knee jerk right wing reactions that disparage the left without much intellectual consideration.

I'll back my asseration at a later date.

peace
birdsigh

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:59 am

MD-2389 wrote:Ya know Birds, if you have such a beef with Lothar's actions, why didn't you send him a PM about it?

He already has PM'ed and emailed me on this topic -- I've just disagreed every time. I certainly don't fault him for posting this, since I've pretty much brushed off his suggestions before, but this really is a public topic. We have different philosophies of moderation, and he'd like to publicly discuss mine. There's no problem here. (I see Birds addressed this while I was busy typing. Looks like we said the same thing.)

Vander wrote:Of the three threads closed...

Mind if I give better explanations here?

1) Kerry - Edwards Lovefest. My explanation: "how about we only start E&C threads that contain E&C content?" A thread full of pictures of Bush looking like a monkey, Kerry and Edwards groping each other, etc. doesn't belong in E&C. There's no serious discussion to be had in a thread like that -- it's just an excuse to bash someone. If you're going to start a thread just to bash someone, do it in the Cafe or NHB. I've moved a few threads like this before (such as Kerry = Lurch, about 3 weeks earlier) so I considered this a "repeat offense" -- I figured closing it might help people get the hint that such threads don't belong in E&C. I should have been more explicit in stating that, though.

2) Kerry recording his Vietnam service - woodchip mentioned Kerry making recordings in Vietnam, and of the 5 replies in the thread, 4 were bashing woodchip and one was suggesting someone should become an anti-woodchip troll. So while the initial post brought up an issue that could have been discussed, the thread had already turned into a "bash woodchip" fest. You're right, V, I should have been more explicit in saying why I closed this. (See below regarding my "getting the last word".)

3) Saudi Troops moving into Iraq - similar to the last thread, though this one had actual content mixed in with the woodchip bashing. 6 of the first 8 posts at least contained *some* reference to the initial topic (mostly of the "I think it's a good idea" variety.) Only 1 of the next 11 did, and the rest were basically focused on determining who's n00b and who's not. That's more than "a little off topic". I feel my explanation ("discussion of the relative n00bness of two pilots is not E&C material") was adequate.

Vander wrote:I think all of those threads should have been left open, and maybe warnings given based on whatever criteria you're using.

I'll give more warnings in the future. Thanks, V.

This thread counts as the first warning, though -- everyone now knows the behavior that led to the 3 threads above being closed. Don't post "make fun of the candidates for non-political attributes" threads (if you want to make fun of their policies, go right ahead -- but if you want to make fun of their looks, speaking ability, hair, etc., try the Cafe or NHB.) Don't trash the thread starter, or any other poster, for that matter -- if you want to flame someone, start a new thread in NHB and flame them. Don't go off on a tangent (such as talking about who's more n00b than who) when it has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Vander wrote:I don't see what the problem would be in fullfilling Birds' request to move such threads to NHB.

This is a peculiarity of my moderating style. I'm not sure if it'll make sense to anyone else, but here goes:

As a moderator, it's my job to keep things on topic and running smoothly, and to keep people generally following board rules. Flaming somebody in this forum does not qualify as "following board rules". If you start flaming someone and I move the thread to NHB where you can keep flaming them, I've essentially rewarded your breaking the rules. That's not what I want to do -- if you break the rules by flaming outside of NHB, I'm going to close the thread or delete your flame. I've said this before: if you want to flame someone, go start your own *new thread* in NHB and flame away. (Fliptw argues this fairly well in his post above.) If there's demand for flame threads, go start some flame threads in NHB.

In the case of a thread posted in the wrong forum, the Lovefest thread probably could have been moved, but I was trying to make the point more blatantly so that people would just start threads of that type where they belonged, since not everyone got the hint from the last few movings. For the most part, I really will just move those threads (like, the one titled "Awww..." is being moved as we speak.)

while I'm doing minor criticism, your closing post from the "Poser" thread was unethical, IMO. You got in the last word by use of your mod powers.

"it's funny that Kerry would record his Vietnam service..." THREAD CLOSED!

I didn't intend that to be a "last word" that anyone should have tried to rebut. Had I tried to get the last word in, I would have written something more substantial. What I actually did was pointed out that I thought it was funny -- not "wrong", "unethical", "politically motivated", etc. Just "funny". Is there really anything there to rebut? "OMG dude, no, it's not funny at all! It's serious, man! NOT FUNNY!"

I'd agree with you if I'd posted something like "Kerry is such a lamer because he did that, and man that was unethical of him... he's such a fake... by the way THREAD CLOSED!" But I don't agree that "that's funny... by the way, THREAD CLOSED!" is inappropriate.

Birdseye wrote:woody's posts don't seem to have much content to me.

That may be entirely true... but don't go flaming him because of it, or if you do decide to flame him, post it over in the flame forum. No sense in derailing a thread here.

Besides, quite often, the opening post in a thread is pretty much content-free. It simply gives us an idea or a keyword to work off of. If you disagree with the sentiment, disagree with the sentiment -- and if you want to flame the guy who posted it, quote him and flame him in NHB.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:26 am

I started reading this thread but I decided that it was so pointless that it should be closed.

jk

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:43 am

If you start flaming someone and I move the thread to NHB where you can keep flaming them, I've essentially rewarded your breaking the rules.

I guess I disagree with your definition. *shrug* To me a mod doesn't reward or punish. They just put things where they go, sometimes its the trash

. It's a service you do for everyone here, everyone is not here to be rewarded or punished by you. I view it alot more like janitor/student then teacher/student. And if a student wants something that you threw away, then you need to fish it out for them.

At least this is how I feel for more old time BBs where everyone knows everyone. If I was mod on a brand new BB my definition would probably be the exact same as yours.

That may be entirely true... but don't go flaming him because of it, or if you do decide to flame him, post it over in the flame forum. No sense in derailing a thread here.

Quite often when describing the left, he adds some special "adjective." He baits us, and so he will get it back.

However, I don't even view these as flames. More like, telling your friend heâ??s an ★■◆●, just because you want too. It is more like an elbow jab,

birds says, "I still love ya woody,"
which he replied, "I love you too Birdy, lets just keep this relationship long distance though."

I just don't consider those flames at all. Kufyit called him nuts, Zuruck told him to stop. Woodchip told Zuruck that "America needed my heritage so your heritage had someplace to escape to in the nineteenth century." Woodchip has called all liberals "cow pies." Do you know what those are?

Like I said, for the most part it doesn't matter. For the most part it runs well, hell, it ran well when we didn't even have a mod!

In reference too, "it's funny that Kerry would record his Vietnam service..." THREAD CLOSED!"

I didn't intend that to be a "last word" that anyone should have tried to rebut. Had I tried to get the last word in, I would have written something more substantial.

Put your honest hat on. If I wrote, "it's funny that Bush would lie about his service..." you wouldn't want to respond? I don't think you are trying to look at things from the other side of the fenceâ?¦.

Like I said, things arenâ??t crumbling down. Compared to other moderators in the past, this is really just a spit in the ocean. Your style is just different form mine. But since we have all been here so long, and its not like a new game board where the line needs to be made firm to keep any order....

...I just feel as comfortable closing posts as I would putting my hand over a friends mouth at a dinner table and telling him, "shhhh...", because he didn't stay on topic, or that he teased someone else at the table a bit (who is known to bait people at times).

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:01 am

dammit bash, I gave you an ad hominem attack first, in an extremely basic format, and you say NOTHING to me! Another reason you shouldn't be listened to!@dasfsdakl

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:17 am

Lothar wrote:if you break the rules by flaming outside of NHB, I'm going to close the thread or delete your flame.

Surely then, you won't mind me closing/deleting all threads that "flame" the left-of-center members of this forum, no?

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:25 am

Face it, if everything worked out perfectly and everybody was happy we'd be living in Pleasantville. Did you see that movie? There's plenty of lanes but no love, my brothers. Think of how boring this f*cking messange board would be if there wasn't any conflicts of interest? No presumptuous, picky athiests vs presumptuous, picky christians? No right to life vs free choice? No Nirvana vs sheep? No, we'd talk about Descent. Whoopee. "Hey man! That was a great game! Yeah, the one where I blew your ship up!" I'm happy that somebody's going to get pissed off at whatever I write, and at the same time it might be funny to someone else.

So I say keep these threads open, you dumb-athiest-christian-nazi-homosexual-bimbo forum mods! I dare you!

(just kidding-- you see? I bet somebody got pissed at the italisized part even though it's surrounded by happy faces.)

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:11 am

Gooberman wrote:[if you're the janitor and] if a student wants something that you threw away, then you need to fish it out for them.

Not always. Sometimes you tell them "it's gone. Go get another one."

You might even tell them "you're not allowed to have that on school property." And that's basically what I'm saying -- if you think it's that important to rag on certain posters, go start a thread in NHB specifically for them. Go get another rag-on-that-person thread, and keep it where it belongs, because if you bring it in here I'm throwing it out.

Gooberman wrote:Quite often when describing the left, he adds some special "adjective." He baits us, and so he will get it back.

However, I don't even view these as flames.

Neither do I. More like, as you said, "elbow jabs" -- or, as I said when describing that particular situation directly, "bashing" or "trashing". And I don't mind when those jabs get mutually thrown around during the discussion.

What I do mind is when a discussion turns into a series of elbow-jabs with little or no content in between (such as threads #2 and #3 in my previous post), or when the jabs get to be really hostile and turn into flames. If you're going to bash someone here, at least do it while making a point.

Goob wrote:
Lothar wrote:I didn't intend ["Kerry recorded his Vietnam service, BTW THREAD CLOSED"] to be a "last word" that anyone should have tried to rebut. Had I tried to get the last word in, I would have written something more substantial.
Put your honest hat on. If I wrote, "it's funny that Bush would lie about his service..." you wouldn't want to respond?

If you used the word "lie" or equally loaded language (such as, for example, "put your honest hat on"), yes, I would want to respond to that word, because I'd take exception to it. But where's the loaded language in "it's funny that Kerry would record his Vietnam service"? What part of that needs responded to? What part do you take exception to? Did Kerry not record his service, or is it not funny?

I'm trying to look at it from the other side... I just can't see what response I should've left the thread open for. I can't see what about "it's funny that Kerry would record his Vietnam service" makes you think "I really wanted to respond to that! How dare you close the thread and get in the last word?" I'm honestly surprised that anyone would consider that as me "getting in the last word".

I make a special effort to avoid getting the last word in when I close a thread (except this one time) -- even in closing a number of Diedel's flamewars (#1 #2 #3), I made sure not to post any sort of commentary in my "thread closed" message. In this case, I posted something that I didn't consider commentary, and when confronted, I explained myself. It wasn't meant to be the "last word", and I can't see any reason why it should be considered as such.

Gooberman wrote:I just feel as comfortable closing posts as I would putting my hand over a friends mouth at a dinner table and telling him, "shhhh..."

Well then maybe you shouldn't close very many posts if it makes you that uncomfortable

I'm pretty comfortable with it, though -- about as comfortable as I am with telling people to keep the noise level down in class (whether I'm the teacher or a student).

We have plenty of other forums and chat rooms where you can just sit around and BS where your analogy would be more appropriate -- I wouldn't be very comfortable banning someone from Kali chat, essentially for the reason you gave. But here? We're at least making an attempt to discuss world events, politics, ethics, religion, etc. in such a way that we can learn a few things from each other. I'm pretty comfortable closing things that really distract us from that.

Tetrad wrote:
Lothar wrote:if you break the rules by flaming outside of NHB, I'm going to close the thread or delete your flame.
Surely then, you won't mind me closing/deleting all threads that "flame" the left-of-center members of this forum, no?

If it was consistant with the sort of flames I delete/close, no, I wouldn't mind it. If I've somehow missed closing those threads, you can close them yourself and I won't mind.

Better yet: how about if you point out the left-bashing threads that you think I should have closed? If I'm not being evenhanded, point it out so I can correct it.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:51 am

I can't do that simply because I hadn't been reading that deeply into those types of things. I'm just saying that if you're going on a teaching rampage, I will to just to keep things balanced.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:29 am

if you are going to delete flames.. delete them from anyone who uses them. Because once you start to favor a person or group, i believe it would be time for you to step down.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:01 am

Tetrad hasn't even *stepped up* yet and he's talking about targeting a specific group if it doesn't promote his political ideology in his chosen manner. Is that what you believe is balance, Tetrad? If you look at the threads Lothar closed, both could be considered somewhat anti-left in tone. Sort of blows your effort to embarrass Lothar and crown yourself defender of the left, doesn't it? Not a good start if your first appearance as a temporary mod is to declare war on the primary moderator.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:44 am

Well then maybe you shouldn't close very many posts if it makes you that uncomfortable

I hardly close any. Ferno has probably been mod half as long now, and closed twice as many. And I still consider him probably in the top 5 most layed back! (The NHB mods pretty much take the cake from us though

) Moding is not an authoritative position.

On rare occasion I have closed a thread, on rare occasion I've told a friend to shut the hell up in a serious tone. Anyway, i'm not going to get you to understand this...

If you look at the threads Lothar closed, both could be considered somewhat anti-left in tone.

Exactly, and closed before we can really respond! Thats some pretty nice spin skilz though Bash, no where has the thead been closed because of what woodchip said (read lothar's reasons again). It wasn't closed because, as you admit, they were anti-left. They were closed because how the left respondedto "anti-left" threads!! Next time we should just all post OH THANK YOU WOODCHIP, I SEE THE LIGHT, I SEE THE LIGHT NOW! BUSH GETS MY VOTE AND GOD THOSE WHINY LIBERALS PISS ME OFF SO MUCH!!11!!! AND HILERY, BURN HER!!!!

anyway, I just don't believe John Kerry recorded his service the way you conservatives are convinced he did. He might of played with a camera a day or so but if he was making "the life of John" with vietnam as the backdrop, we would see it on T.V. everywhere. The problem is Lothar, that you view anything anti-left as fact and in no need of rebuttle. I don't think saying Bush has lied about his service needs a rebuttle.

But now I am getting off topic, if only there was a therad I could respond in. damn