The addition of Gah

[Divinus Arma]

Totally unacceptable.

I'm a fan of Gah as much as the next guy. But sometimes I want an actual response from middle-of-the-roaders besides an intellectual fart.

Pape, the lib aussie whom I hold much affinity for, added Gah to my poll in a way that should be deemed unacceptable.

Please establish a practice of non-interference in threads unlesss those threads interfere with Org rules.

My thanks gents. I made this public because this is a public issue beyond political tendencies; altering patrons' posts or polls when they are in compliance with org rules is a bad precedent.

Much love to Pape, kin, and staff regardless.

Warmest Regards.

[Blodrast]

Normally, it has indeed become habitual for people posting polls to include a Gah option - if for no other reason than that if they don't, they'll get 2 pages full of posts asking about the Gah! option. Which usually also kills threads, as it should be obvious.

It's also a kind of an Org watermark, in a way.
Anyway, bottom line, it's usually a good/nice thing to have.

However, if you were not asked about this, and especially if you don't want it, it should certainly not be imposed on you. My guess is that Pape just did this out of the goodness of his heart, assuming you simply forgot to add the Gah! option, and he wanted to help you (because I believe you can't change a poll once it's posted).

I think you're right, and you're perfectly entitled to ask for the option to be removed, if so you wish, and if it is possible. Otherwise, I suppose you can ask for the thread to be closed and reopen a new poll with only the options you want.

I would also like to point out that I find your approach admirable: calm, intelligent post, no emotional stuff, very polite and gentlemanly. My hat's off to you for that. :bow:

[LeftEyeNine]

Well after seeing so many votes gone to GAH!, especially after learning that Pape added the choice himself without notice, Eclectic the DA has a point there, so speaks my humble mind.

[Mikeus Caesar]

This happens every few months - we get into an argument about GAH! Really. If you don't like GAH! just ignore the people who post this intellectual brainfart.

It's not like we force you to read it.

[Papewaio]

Any Democracy allows the option of a Donkey vote, even in Australia where you get fined if you don't turn up to the voting station you still can cast a Donkey vote. Also most polls will have a "Don't Know/Care/Understand/Me No Speak Engrish/Bleep I hate telemarketers" option.

It is also an easy way to not commit by see how others have commited without making a false statement.

So for the sake of either ease of tradition or both I added a Gah! option.

BTW An Aussie Liberal is a conservative.

[Quid]

I think the 'GAH' option was missing because quite frankly, the choices given were not really acceptable and only superficial. If you meant it that way, DA - I refuse your new name, it's confusing me :dizzy2: - then you have, of course, the right to complain.

I don't think, however, that GAH should be added simply for the reason of it having been left out. Perhaps the dear moderator should have consulted with you first, eh?

Quid

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't often find myself in agreement with Eclectic, but I do think he has a point here. Whilst Gah! is an honourable tradition, it is not, as I understand it, a compulsory inclusion to a poll. If a member wishes to omit it, those who wish to register a non-vote may say so in a post, or simply not participate.

Unless the poll is somehow offensive or breaks the rules, I can't see why a moderator would interfere - particularly as in this case, where it seems no consultation with the OP took place. (If Pape did consult, then forgive the assumption).

Perhaps Australians get the benefit of a 'None of the Above' option (and bless them if they do, it's a long-time soap-box of mine) but this is not universal, and not in the constitutional arrangements for the Org as I understand them. If we are going to apply national norms, perhaps we should discount any votes cast from Floridian Democrats as well. :bounce:

The Backroom is a place of opinions firmly held and debated, and must be a nightmare to moderate. However, in this case, I think the addition was a step too far as no rules were being broken.

:2cents: :bow:

[Aenlic]

I think all polls should automatically include a Gah option. This is because in almost all cases, poll makers aren't interested in results so much as they're interested in making some point or another. In most of those cases, the poll options are narrowly defined and often blatantly slanted. In a few cases these polls actually amount to the poll version of the proverbial question with no correct answer - such as "have you ever been caught masturbating?" which has no easy yes or no answer, or your wife asking "Do these clothes make me look fat?" which has no correct answer no matter what you say. So, failing some way to force the poll makers to make reasonable poll questions, Gah is the only reasonable solution. :wink:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think all polls should automatically include a Gah option. This is because in almost all cases, poll makers aren't interested in results so much as they're interested in making some point or another. In most of those cases, the poll options are narrowly defined and often blatantly slanted. In a few cases these polls actually amount to the poll version of the proverbial question with no correct answer - such as "have you ever been caught masturbating?" which has no easy yes or no answer, or your wife asking "Do these clothes make me look fat?" which has no correct answer no matter what you say. So, failing some way to force the poll makers to make reasonable poll questions, Gah is the only reasonable solution. :wink:

I don't disagree, though I think it should be 'None of the Above' that was included as there is a number of patrons that feel Gah! is unacceptable as a response and therefore would also feel disenfranchised.

However, that is not a rule as yet, and Eclectic is complaining that it was imposed on him.

It's not like Backroom polls are statistically significant anyhow :grin:

[Divinus Arma]

Let me reiterate: I have no problem with Gah. In this instance, however, I would rather those with no opinion simply not vote. I felt that the poll options were rather unbiased: Jews, Muslims, Chrsitians, or all three.

My beef is simply the modification of a thread because it did not have an option that the moderator wanted. It broke no forum rules, but was altered anyway.


In this instance moderation ceased being "regulation enforcement" and began being "opinion enforcement". It was Pape's opinion that Gah should be included and he used his moderating powers to enforce his opinion that Gah should be included.

I would initially say that it was perhaps a simple honest error in judgment but Pape reaffirms his decision here. :embarassed:

[Lemur]

Gah! cannot be compelled upon the people -- Gah! must come from love. Or fear. Or boredom. Forced Gah! is not true Gah!

I have defended Gah! with my blood and bone, but it's just wrong to foist Gah! on the unworthy, the unclean, or the unwilling. Let them come to Gah! when they are ready.

[R'as al Ghul]

(...)which has no easy yes or no answer, or your wife asking "Do these clothes make me look fat?" which has no correct answer no matter what you say.(...)

Now you have me confused. ~:confused:
Isn't GAH! the correct answer for that one?


I'd say make it a compulsory poll option. :wink:

[Reenk Roink]

Let me reiterate: I have no problem with Gah.

This is good.


In this instance, however, I would rather those with no opinion simply not vote. I felt that the poll options were rather unbiased: Jews, Muslims, Chrsitians, or all three.

Frankly man, I felt that the poll choices were superficial and oversimplistic...

Definitely, 'Gah' was needed in this poll. I wouldn't have any other choice to put by a strech. Apparently, neither would others

Still...


My beef is simply the modification of a thread because it did not have an option that the moderator wanted. It broke no forum rules, but was altered anyway.

In this instance moderation ceased being "regulation enforcement" and began being "opinion enforcement". It was Pape's opinion that Gah should be included and he used his moderating powers to enforce his opinion that Gah should be included.

I agree with you there man...

'Gah' shouldn't have been forced upon you like that...

You should have been forced to see the wisdom of a 'Gah' choice when people started complaining about and critiquing the poll choices (like I would have done :tongue:).

I agree fully with this:

[QUOTE=Lemur]Gah! cannot be compelled upon the people -- Gah! must come from love. Or fear. Or boredom. Forced Gah! is not true Gah![/QUOTE

But I do not think the mods should be able to just change polls by themselves for an insufficent reason. In my book, editing out vulgarity, hate, etc, is completely justifiable, but adding 'Gah'? Without even sending a PM?

:gah2:

Of course, this forum will allow what it wants to allow, and it may be that excluding 'Gah' is sufficient reason for editing, and in that case...

:sweatdrop:

[Silver Rusher]

Totally unacceptable.

I'm a fan of Gah as much as the next guy. But sometimes I want an actual response from middle-of-the-roaders besides an intellectual fart.

Pape, the lib aussie whom I hold much affinity for, added Gah to my poll in a way that should be deemed unacceptable.
That's disgraceful!

[Avicenna]

:gah:

[stalin]

It was a real stupid poll so Gah! was the neccesary addition

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
:gah2:
.

[stalin]

It was a real stupid poll so Gah! was the neccesary addition
on par with this abortion:
What is YOUR strategy for defeating Islamo-fascists?

[Aenlic]

...your wife asking "Do these clothes make me look fat?" which has no correct answer no matter what you say...


Now you have me confused. ~:confused:
Isn't GAH! the correct answer for that one?

Gah is an answer, and as such will lead to your doom. :skull:

There are only a few safe ways out of this trap. Anything you say will be used against you, not matter what it is. Solutions must, therefore, involve no vocalization on your part: since such might construed, misconstrued, assumed or even imagined as an answer.

First option:

Die. Sudden death at this moment will release you from question answering and all other marital obligations (such as the equally dreaded "do you think I'm sexy/old/smart/etc.?"). Unfortunately, it must be a natural death. Getting out the razor blade and slitting your wrists will clue her in that something is up. It is, however, the only sure way to avoid the question and its resulting pain and suffering.

Second Option:

Coma. This is only a temporary solution which will get you to option one safely if you have the proper living will refusing any life-keeping measures. If you have the misfortune to awaken from the coma, the questioner will generally still be there awaiting an answer. Usually right next to the nice flowers and get well cards with that time-honored expression which eloquently and yet without words says, "Well?"

Third Option:

Meteorite strike. Difficult to arrange at best, but a possible solution if, and only if, the resulting crisis makes her forget about the question. A partial failure on your part will result in the questioner standing next to a smoking crater where your house used to be and with the same expression as in Option Two.

No other options can be reasonably expected to provide relief from The Question; although rumors suggest that a "sudden onset of dementia accompanied by clinical deafness" might produce good results.

(I know, I know. It's off topic. But I just couldn't restrain myself.) :grin:

[Xiahou]

As a regular member, if I don't like a poll's options- what can I do? Whine about it? Make a new poll?

As a mod, you apparently modify the poll so it has the option you want. I dont post many polls, but will never do so if 'gah' is a mandated option.

[AntiochusIII]

Let me reiterate: I have no problem with Gah. In this instance, however, I would rather those with no opinion simply not vote. I felt that the poll options were rather unbiased: Jews, Muslims, Chrsitians, or all three.What about the Baha'i faith, Baal worshippers, a few crazy Buddhists, Klingons, Smurfs, a thousand other possibilities, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Those are all possible choices. Indeed, the first one I mentioned is quite reasonable in the mainstream, rather compromising sense (for I can make arguments that all voices have the same power and no self-righteous fanatics can claim to be holy to them alone - but that's for the thread itself) as they too possess holy sites in the Levantine area, and the faith is not small by any but the most narrowminded of definitions.

The least you could do is put "none of the above - explain please" choice, or, for a shorter, more implicit, and quite recently controversial version of it, "gah."

Of course, Pape adding "gah" to your choice without contacting you first understandably annoys you a bit. Unfortunately, though, to be really honest, I would've complained had I seen but four original choices that you posted.

Fair to the Triumvirate, maybe, but not the ignored rest.

[solypsist]

it was a pretty crappy poll to begin with.

the best way to avoid having users vote the "gah!" option* is simply make a better poll.

when a poll is absurdly narrow in its choices, you can expect "gah!" to rear it's ugly head time and again. put some thought and effort into a poll before creating it, and other people will take it more seriously and probably put some effort into voting appropriately; put two seconds of thought into making a poll, and you can expect likewise from voters. easy.

*whether it's added or not

[nokhor]

i have not seen the poll so i may be missing something but i don't get it. but if Eclectic makes a crappy poll and is looking for serious answers, chances are he will get crappy answers and it is therefore a self regulating solution. he will get the Gah responses in text, whether he wants them or not and he will either learn to make better poll choices next time or he will not. i don't see the justification of it being imposed from the outside.

and i don't get why Eclectic has to make mention of 'the lib aussie' Pape as if where Pape is from or his politics unduly influence his ability as a moderator.

[Divinus Arma]

Can I get a straight answer please?


If you didn't like my poll options, too bad. Make your own poll with options that you do like. Or stop allowing patrons to make polls. While you're at it, take away edit buttons and increase flood time to 1 hour. That will ensure a "Thoughtful" reply, eh?


This is ridiculous. I just don't like the idea of Moderators screwing with a patron's post when no rules are broken. If I get Gah-bombed for not having the option, then so be it. And if someone wants different options, so be it; that is what discussion is for.

Stupid thing for people to get all whiney about Gah over. It has nothing to do with Gah. He could have added: "Give Israel to the child molestors and turn it in to a prison", or anything at all. Same issue.

At least show some courtesy and PM the patron.

And attacking a patron for raising an issue in the one area designed by board administration for raising an issue seems pretty screwed up. I can almost smell the boot polish and CLP. :sweatdrop:

[Kralizec]

I disapprove of your poll options, but I will defend to the death your right to make them...or something along those lines.

If DA/Eclectic violated a rule, we'd have known by now. Does the staff reserve the right to change polls (or in general, posts) to suit their personal opinions of how a better poll would have looked like? Something like "we at the .org reserve the right to edit your contributions for editorial purposes"? I must have skimped the FAQ page since I didn't notice it.

In a light hearted poll I might add a GAH! option. A fun tradition is a fun tradition.
But if I was making up my mind on a serious issue and wonder what other people think, I want a nice percentual breakdown of the .org opinions. I'm not perfect so I would add an option "undecided/none of the above". Why not GAH! ? Because I expect that some people will use it as an excuse not to think of the question at hand and simply vote to confirm their existence. I say this without spite, in that case I'd much rather have that you refrain from voting. It's not as if you get warned if you don't.

[Papewaio]

I had already closed:

Pick your Team: Who do you want to "win"? The Jews or the 'Palis? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=66463) which was just pure gasoline and tinder for a flame war. Even with a Gah! option, which this one was made to be quite specific rather then a neutral position, as bombing them out would hardly be a Ghandi or MLK choice. So when looking at other poll after the first one it just looked like additional fuel for a flame war.

That and the poll gave no option other then give land to some religion because they think it is holy. The premise being that religions over rule all other human thought systems, which creates a tiered system of rights. Those with a religion above those without. That a large portion of those fighting may not be religious and at most use religion as a bargaining chip or leverage is not even considered in the poll. The poll was a hypothesis looking for supportive data.

So I was looking at another potential bonfire given the subject matter and no neutral option to vent frustrations with the poll choices. That unlike the poll that I closed, I saw it may lead to some intellectual discussion if it could avoid the flame fest I added a neutral option. Which meant at that point:


Because this may lead to intellectual discussion I have added the antithesis of that into the poll. Gah! has been added to for all the donkey voters and those hung like one.

Nor did I constrain Gah! to something predefined which in turn neuters its neutrality.

[Divinus Arma]

Under my perspective of the conditions of the issue, it is an unfortunate reality, but the dispute in the middle east has centered around religion for hundreds of years. Whether it be merely under the banner of religion now or then is not relevant for my purposes.

Our disagreement stands not in how to handle the issue, but in how that issue is framed to begin with. You may see it as secular, as is your right. I, however, do not see it as secular, and am entitled to frame the issue, and consequently the question, as I see appropriate.

Your stated reasoning for altering the poll implies that you sought to alter the context as well, from my perspective to yours.

Discussions on issues such as this in the backroom are inextricably bound to stir emotion. Where is the logic in altering or closing a thread in order to prevent emotional replies based on a contextual perception you disagree with? Personal responsibility for posting rule-compliant replies rests with the patron in reply and not with the thread originator, unless the thread originator posts a blatantly inflammatory introduction. This was, by no means, a blatantly inflammatory poll. It was merely framed in accordance with a perspective of the issue that I hold.

[Papewaio]

Gah! is a retarded option which also acts as a fire retardent.

moderator

n 1: any substance used to slow down neutrons in nuclear reactors
2: in the Presbyterian church, the officer who presides over a synod or general assembly
3: someone who presides over a forum or debate
4: someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence

So as a moderator my job is to avoid violence. So it was pre-emptive strike to avoid a flame war, yet keep the thread open for discussion.

[English assassin]

your wife asking "Do these clothes make me look fat?" which has no correct answer no matter what you say.

Eh? Surely the correct answer is "No, those clothes do not make you look fat. Its all the chocolate and ice cream you eat that makes you look fat".

Come ON people.

[Drisos]

I think Pape added it rightfully for a practical reason - people who want to see the results but don't see the option of their choice included cannot see the results without doing a 'false vote'. Which is why practically all polls need such option.. and following the org tradition Pape called it gah..

anyway, he explained this earlier.

GAH!

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I don't see a big problem with what Pape did, but just to let you know there is a little see results button that you can use to see the results without voting. It is somewhat more inconvenient than just seeing the results every time you open the thread after you have voted, but it is possible to see the results without voting.

[Drisos]

thanks for the note.. is that new or have I been missing that feature for almost 2 years now?:oops: :dizzy2: :embarassed: :embarassed: :wall:

[Lemur]

You've been missing it for two years, sorry to say.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I think this is pretty ridiculous. As unbalanced as the poll may have been - which itself is worthy of debate, discussion, and maybe a poll or two - it wasn't any more outright offensive than most Backroom polls. The poll was somewhat simplistic and crude, but no one complained about it to my knowledge. I'm glad you support the war in Iraq, Pape, if you're such a fan of pre-emptive strikes.

This is turning into another glimpse at the ugly face of Gah. :no:

[Lemur]

I'll say it again -- Gah must not be forced on the people. A forced tradition is no tradition at all.

[Divinus Arma]

Then all posts should have GAH. Period. That should be an Org Forum rule and their should be no deviation without warning.

A sad day for the Org. :shame:

[caravel]

The time of GAH! is here, dark times, dark times...

"before the dark times, before GAH!..."

[doc_bean]

While I don't like a mod adding options to a poll. The options and the context (previous) posts essentially left only two choices: close it or add the Gah! option.

If so many people vote gah then it means there was something wrong with your poll, there would have been a hell of lot more bitching/flaming if it was left out. The average Orgah seemed to believe that a country (or a region) does not belong to a certain religion, but belongs to to the people, at least that's what I got from the thread. The votes would support this.

[caravel]

You have to have a: don't know/care / other option in a poll. This shows the true proportion of people that don't care and/or are not fully commited to their votes on the other options, making the poll clearer. If there are far too many GAH!s then the poll wasn't clear or specific enough.

[Stormcrow]

Ok, moderating someones post which wasn't breaking forum rules without PMing the author may not have been the wisest move...

But what real damage has been done? No information was lost, no insults were made.. maak van een mug geen olifant. (translate it and you'll be enlightened ~;) ).

[Reenk Roink]

Hey, hey hey...

Do not take this isolated incident as an excuse to bash 'Gah'... :furious3:

Some people are always just taking it too far...

[Kralizec]

While I don't agree with Pape's action, I think some people here are exaggerating the issue.

Let it rest already.

[Louis VI the Fat]

How can this issue be exagahrated? We're dealing with questions about the soul of the .org here!


But seriously. I've once had a whole poll added to a poll-less thread of mine. That Texas versus France thread started out without one, and then somebody else started a thread with a poll about it. The mods merged the two, thereby robbing my thread of the rather creative title 'The Biggest State in the Union versus the Biggest State in the Union'.

I was not amused at first. But I also accepted it did make sense from a moderating perspective. The backroom needs to be kept tight and compact.

So there is a at least one comparable precedent. Entire polls have been added as a moderating measure.

The backroom also needs to be kept clear of flame wars. In this case, Divinus' case, one thread was locked already. The next, possibly a ticking bomb, was defused by the simple measure of adding a poll option. At the very least it is not an unprecedented moderating procedure to interfere with polls or poll-options.


Does the staff reserve the right to change polls (or in general, posts) to suit their personal opinions of how a better poll would have looked like? Something like "we at the .org reserve the right to edit your contributions for editorial purposes"? I must have skimped the FAQ page since I didn't notice it. The case of Louis v. Org has established this as a legal principle, under common law as valid as written law.

[AntiochusIII]

You just gotta love Internet Drama...

:end:

[IrishArmenian]

I think Gah is great as long as you say you voted for it and explain why. It is not just for middle of the roaders, but sometimes off-roaders, like me.

[Ironside]

thanks for the note.. is that new or have I been missing that feature for almost 2 years now?:oops: :dizzy2: :embarassed: :embarassed: :wall:

I think it was added when the board changed the code engine. So while it might not been 2 years it's certainly been a while.

As for the issue, while I'm exactly fond of moderators adding options into a poll, that particular one needed a gah option or something simular.

[caravel]

I think this thread has had it's day. I suppose the mods actions are final, but it's good that you can actualy come here, make a thread and complain about it, and that that the mods answer your thread with respect and consideration. For that they deserve alot of credit IMO.

I know of a particular forum that would simply treat you like an imbecile in a kindergarten and close the thread warning you to never question the mods actions again... and i think you know what I think of that...

:gah2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

your wife asking "Do these clothes make me look fat?" which has no correct answer no matter what you say. Eh? Surely the correct answer is "No, those clothes do not make you look fat. Its all the chocolate and ice cream you eat that makes you look fat".

Come ON people.

Please note, if you are going to adopt EA's strategy, you might as well go for broke and finish your response with "Now shut up and give me a [insert your own common cultural euphamism for oral pleasuring] and then get me a beer." If the tactic actually works -- unlikely -- you might as well push for maximum payoff.


As to the topic:

1. Eclec' was trying for a "forced choice" poll. While I mislike these polls, they are an accepted research tool, forcing the participant into a category or to refuse to provide input.

2. Moderators run the forum. It is within their purview to add, delete, alter, or mar whatever they wish on any thread. In doing so, they are responsible to their fellow mod's and to the possibility that posters might "vote with their feet" if conditions become unenjoyable.

3. Eclec' proferred his thoughts on the matter -- by the way, I concur that providing an option that was not intended by the original poster was not the best choice -- in the appropriate sub-forum and fashion.

4. We should all now return to our regularly scheduled lives.:2thumbsup:

[Divinus Arma]

For the record, a post in the watchtower does not equate to anger or even passion. I just figured it was worth expressing my opinion. Whether anything actually gets done is pretty moot to me. Pape could change all my polls and its doubtful I would leave in a hurry. At almost six posts per day for a year and a half, its doubtful I would just abandon our beloved Org. I would have left once I figured the staff is slightly left of center. (Which is fine, since so is the community. Although at least one right-leaning representative would be nice. ~:rolleyes:)

[Blodrast]

For the record, a post in the watchtower does not equate to anger or even passion. I just figured it was worth expressing my opinion. Whether anything actually gets done is pretty moot to me. Pape could change all my polls and its doubtful I would leave in a hurry. At almost six posts per day for a year and a half, its doubtful I would just abandon our beloved Org. I would have left once I figured the staff is slightly left of center. (Which is fine, since so is the community. Although at least one right-leaning representative would be nice. ~:rolleyes:)

OT: You mean, PJ is not right-leaning enough for you ??!
I think if he leaned a bit harder, he would be horizontal ! ~;p
Not that there's anything wrong with that - we all give the Org a wee bit of our personal touch, and make it the cool place that it is, with all its minor imperfections ~:cheers:

[Blodrast]

Oh, you meant right-leaning staff, I guess - OK, my bad. Well, then, wait a bit until PJ or Kaiser are promoted !:2thumbsup:

[UglyandHasty]

hahaha this thread might be one of the most ridiculous ever ! Krast is turning upside down in his coffin. You all need more head soup, it help seeing things more lightly .......

Gah !

[ajaxfetish]

Well, it looks like I'm a couple weeks late to a topic that's been talked to death already, but in spite of that I think I'll still add my 2 cents. Generally speaking (and much as I appreciate DA in his own special way) I have a much greater respect for Pape's opinions and think he makes very good decisions in his modding activities. However, I have to support DA in his complaint on this issue.


While I don't like a mod adding options to a poll. The options and the context (previous) posts essentially left only two choices: close it or add the Gah! option.

I think (by his explanation of his reasoning) Pape was certainly justified in adding the Gah option to avert possible disaster, but once DA complained--in a polite and reasonable way in the proper forum for it--I think his official complaint should have been respected and the option removed, which of course would most likely necessitate Doc Bean's alternate choice, but so be it.

Ajax

[Divinus Arma]

I think that this thread should be deleted.


But only after a few controversial photgraphs are added first... :laugh4:

[Duke John]

No thank you, we've had enough of that kind of internet drama with Shambles :wink: