You know what I want to know? The biggest secret on the AH.

[JGittes]

And when are we going to see the showdown with AH_Rocker?

Quoting Ringo always gets an upvote.

 

[SimonDoom]

Quoting Ringo always gets an upvote.

It don't come easy.

 

[onehitwanda]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMXdtaTNpOHgyMXd3NGpldDIzMmMyMWkydHZpbWhrbTV4NWcwOWN2MSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/3oz8xQ1pU3vlz6U4Rq/giphy.gif

 

[SimonDoom]

AH Mod is John Galt.

Or Waldo.

Or RacerX, who, unknown to Speed, is really his brother Rex Racer, who ran away from home years ago.

Or Bruce Wayne. Or Clark Kent.

Or maybe an AI. That would cut down on the employment benefits.

 

[FidelityBoss]

There was no infighting.
PSG had some over-the-top words, I agree, but I didn't see anything that doesn't happen in other threads too. Either way, even if a few of her posts warranted editing or even a warning from the mod, there was no need to close the thread which lasted for five pages, had some nice discussion, and was absolutely polite apart from a few posts only.

But as usual, whenever we discuss some more serious topics, some snowflake just waits for the opportunity to alert the mod, and @AH_Mod's only impulse is always to close the thread. If one or two people went over the top in a few posts only, why do always the rest of us have to be punished for it?

Sounds like a classic case of over-moderation. If only a few posts were out of line, it’s frustrating when the whole thread gets shut down instead of just addressing the issue. Mods sometimes play it safe, but it can feel like punishing everyone for a couple of bad apples. Maybe a more balanced approach would keep discussions alive while still maintaining order.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Sounds like a classic case of over-moderation. If only a few posts were out of line, it’s frustrating when the whole thread gets shut down instead of just addressing the issue. Mods sometimes play it safe, but it can feel like punishing everyone for a couple of bad apples. Maybe a more balanced approach would keep discussions alive while still maintaining order.

Actually, it seems to me like a case of a wilful mod who doesn't have balls on top of it. When AH Mod closes a topic, he signs his name and provides explanation, and I thank him for reminding me of that. I kinda thought it was him at first, but it turns out it wasn't.

Now, from what I have seen, when Laurel intervenes, she just nukes the posts ( and doesn't edit them like mods do) and closes a thread without a word. I might be wrong here of course, but I don't think I am.

So that means that the thread was closed by an overzealous mod, shall we say, and one who didn't have the balls to sign their name but wrote ADMIN instead.
I'll leave it to everyone to make their own conclusions as to who it was.

 

[StillStunned]

So that means that the thread was closed by an overzealous mod, shall we say, and one who didn't have the balls to sign their name but wrote ADMIN instead.
I'll leave it to everyone to make their own conclusions as to who it was.

You seem very indignant.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

You seem very indignant.

I am. I think it was a fruitful and polite thread up until a few posts only. There was absolutely no need to close it.
And this is not the first time. I believe it was a case of misuse of power and am not the type of person who would stay silent.

 

[StillStunned]

I am. I think it was a fruitful and polite thread up until a few posts only. There was absolutely no need to close it.
And this is not the first time. I believe it was a case of misuse of power and am not the type of person who would stay silent.

All I saw was a circular discussion where no-one was going to change their position, and that had started to turn abusive. I think whoever closed it made the right decision.

 

[SimonDoom]

All I saw was a circular discussion where no-one was going to change their position, and that had started to turn abusive. I think whoever closed it made the right decision.

I agree with Awkwardlyset on this one (how about that!). The moderator has a habit of being overaggressive about shutting threads down. I think the right course of action is to warn the few offenders, possibly delete their posts, but let everybody else continue having their discussion. I don't like the idea that somebody has the authority to decide that a thread has run its course. That seems contrary to the spirit of free speech to me. I think one of the enjoyable features of threads in this forum is the way they get off track and go haywire sometimes. It adds to the fun and sometimes it adds to the intellectual heft of the discussion.

I DO support the policing of, and prohibition of, personal nastiness, and there were posts in that thread that in my opinion crossed the line and were rightfully deleted. But shutting the thread down is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

All I saw was a circular discussion where no-one was going to change their position, and that had started to turn abusive. I think whoever closed it made the right decision.

Most people who expressed their opinions about this case disagree with you. But you are entitled to your own views of course. I am not claiming the discussion was perfect, but for AH, it was one of the more fruitful ones.

People don't need to agree for a discussion to be fruitful. Expressing different views and presenting arguments is more than good enough. Everyone can make their own conclusions.

 

[alohadave]

There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

Maybe you could do it better, maybe not.

The fact that these kinds of complaint threads are left alone is indication that the moderation isn't nearly as heavy as some claim.

 

[MelissaBaby]

All I saw was a circular discussion where no-one was going to change their position, and that had started to turn abusive. I think whoever closed it made the right decision.

The only people qualified to decide if a conversation is productive or not are those engaged in it.

Abusive posts can be easily handled by deleting them.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I think the proof of the pudding has to be at least a little bit in the eating, and when the thread was closed the subsequent conversation was all about moderation practices, not an attempt to restart the productive bits of the thread. That, to me, suggests that it had mostly run its course anyway. Whether it should have been closed or not, I take no position.

 

[onehitwanda]

“All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.”​

― J.M. Barrie

 

[AwkwardMD]

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think the proof of the pudding has to be at least a little bit in the eating, and when the thread was closed the subsequent conversation was all about moderation practices, not an attempt to restart the productive bits of the thread. That, to me, suggests that it had mostly run its course anyway. Whether it should have been closed or not, I take no position.

Are you for real?

Two people are watching a movie and then suddenly they hear a loud explosion. The power goes down and everything goes dark. They rush to the balcony and see a large fire in the distance.
But I'm totally with you there, if they end up talking about the explosion and the fire and not about the movie, the movie must have sucked!

 

[YmaOHyd]

Are you for real?

Two people are watching a movie and then suddenly they hear a loud explosion. The power goes down and everything goes dark. They rush to the balcony and see a large fire in the distance.
But I'm totally with you there, if they end up talking about the explosion and the fire and not about the movie, the movie must have sucked!

I'm not sure a thread being closed rises quite to the level of drama of an explosion, a widespread power outage and a fire so large you can see it in the distance, especially if the objection to the thread's closure was 'but the conversation was so good!'. Maybe a better analogy is two people watching a movie on Netflix when the internet goes out and the only thing they want to talk about is the internet being out even though they've got the movie on DVD, right over there on the shelf, and could get back to it whenever they want.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm not sure a thread being closed rises quite to the level of drama of an explosion, a widespread power outage and a fire so large you can see it in the distance, especially if the objection to the thread's closure was 'but the conversation was so good!'. Maybe a better analogy is two people watching a movie on Netflix when the internet goes out and the only thing they want to talk about is the internet being out even though they've got the movie on DVD, right over there on the shelf, and could get back to it whenever they want.

Yeah, the thread being unjustly and abruptly closed, with the addition of potential abuse of power, vs general discussion about story lengths and categorization, which we should have supposedly continued in a thread that was started with a completely different topic in mind.
Your analogy is clearly much better than mine.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I think the offending party or parties should have received a warning. Not from me or any of y'alls, but the AH Deity.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think the offending party or parties should have received a warning. Not from me or any of y'alls, but the AH Deity.

You mean her?

View attachment 2502142
She does stir religious feelings even in an agnostic fucker such as myself.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I know not this Deity, only that when he, she, it speaks, we must listen. And when she closes a door, no window opens.

You mean her?

View attachment 2502142
She does stir religious feelings even in an agnostic fucker such as myself.

 

[YmaOHyd]

There's always the option to open a new thread to say the substantive things that didn't get to be said, if they exist.

 

[jaF0]

The three threads went on far longer than they should have. I'd have locked them far sooner, probably by the third page.

I'd also delete most of the post here as off-topic, which they are. This was supposed to be a sillyfun thread, not an extension of the throat slashing.

I've got a news flash for you ..... when Laurel nukes a thread, at least some of the offending IDs get nuked too. If you like the AH, I'd very strongly advise all/most of you to change your tunes.

You are here as guests. You can be swiftly uninvited.

 

[jaF0]

There's always the option to open a new thread to say the substantive things that didn't get to be said, if they exist.

No, there isn't. Not when a thread is closed for misbehavior.

Closed means Closed, just like No means No.