Re; the recent flapdoodle on Meta... does this mean that the policy of a question having to be a question is now voided?

(I think you just opened up the next can of worms.) That would work fine for me for Meta; I don’t know if the Founders would want to change Social.

What recent flapdoodle?

@janbb: The can seems to have been already opened and is sitting here wiggling at me.

One for all or all for one?

@anartist; Click on meta above and open @johnpowell’s declarative sentence of yesterday.

Is wasn’t a question and that is the policy, right? I wonder why it is still up? Should the entire thing be pulled and a notice by the moderators be put in its place explaining the situation? What would it take for you suggestion to be implemented, @gailcalled?

Don’t ask me. Ask Auggie (or @johnpowell).

I think it was seen as provoking an important issue which it did.

I think it was too, @janbb. So it that the criteria for having a discussion in Meta without an actual question? The discretion of what is deemed as provoking an important issue would be left to the moderators? I haven’t had to deal with anything like that with my questions or responses; they just get completely deleted. But I do understand the provocation that must have been felt at having that sort of editing done to a response. I guess it all happened so quickly, the ripples haven’t been felt yet.

Oh, thanks, @gailcalled! I am still dealing with the fallout from yesterday, and you now open another can of worms! (which is weird ‘cause I thought you were veggie).~

Maybe we can see yesterday’s statement as an anomaly that was allowed. It would have been a little cruel and unusual to mod off a statement about being unfairly modded. We’re not Jeopardy!

I thought the whole purpose of this site was to ask a question and then (hopefully) get answers?

But I’m behind on the whole flapdoodle thing.

@mrentropy Go to Meta and read.

I think if you read the mods responses it’s obvious why they let that exception stay without sugesting a whole sale policy change.

@janbb Read what on Meta? The only thing I see that’s somewhat controversial is the answer editing thing, which I think grew to ridiculous proportions. I’m not sure how that relates to a question not having to be a question (which is kind of Zen-like).

@Lightlyseared Exactly!

@mrentropy Sorry – didn’t mean to be obscure. That is the flapdoodle that @gailcalled is referring to and her issue seems to be that it wasn’t in the form of a question.

@janbb Oh. Now I understand. I don’t see how it equates to abandoning the whole “question needs to be a question” thing, though.

On a semi-related note: Fluther needs a message board so people who want to be social without using the chat room or mangling the English language to write a non-question into a question will have someplace to go.

@mrentropy That’s a good idea. I sometimes just want to post something but am not a chatroom person.

And I agree that this one exception does not have to lead to a major policy reassessment.

If you look back upon the years, Gail, and you’ve been here forever, there have been the occasional statement/question. It’s rare, but it happens. I think they let it slide based on three criteria; who does the asking, whether it is clear (has all the information in the statement) and all by itself – i.e., doesn’t have another statement before or after it – for days.

Ryan asked it. Auggie left it. No biggie.

@Jan – did you call my name Cuz you know, wherever I am, I’ll come running?

Came for the use of the word “flapdoodle”.

I just came for @gailcalled asking a question.

To any who suggested removing that thread in its entirety simply because it wasn’t in the form of a Q:

Please bite your tongue for even suggesting that.

Has there been a collective forgetting of that miserable time period shortly after the change to the three separate sections and the strict enforcement policy on such ?

There was wholesale slaughter of ENTIRE questions. Not just entire quips. Entire questions for all sorts of dubious reasons (usually some flamebaiting within a Q, but not always.)

Even Qs which generated a hefty amount of participation community wide were simply removed in total, never to be seen again.

I took a long hiatus prompted by that since I thought it was a ridiculous over reaction. And if that type of heavy handedness returns, I’m done with it.

It didn’t involve any of my own Qs but it was the principle involved.

And now there are suggestions that JPs statement should be removed entirely simply for lack of a Q mark? Good grief.

Some semblance of balance has basically been operative as of late. Let’s be glad that Qs are no longer being removed in their entirety rather than suggesting a return to that type of overkill.

And we all have Auggie to thank for her great judgment, fairness and dedication to the site.

Zactly.

I’ve often seen an inconsistency in that area, doesn’t really bother me enough to care though.

I am sure a more experienced mod will correct me if I am wrong but the policy remains the same. The title for your post should be in the form of a question. As has been suggested, sometimes, if the premise of the post is very clear, mods will allow those that do not fit the bill to slide through but the policy remains and you should consider it will be applied.

Yesterday was an unusual situation. Given the topic of the member’s post I did not mod it because I feel it would have been wrong and petty to do so. It would have further inflamed an already tense environment. The point being made was very clear. It was important to allow that discussion to take place and to allow a response from the site manager to be provided.

I am not in favour of applying rules for the sake of applying rules. While I believe consistency is important (and is the only way to manage a site like this), using common sense and sensitivity when appropriate is equally necessary. So, on occasions the right thing to do is to turn a blind eye to minor breaches of the rules/policy.

And that’s why we love you too @Bellatrix . Beautifully stated.

Allowing it to happen one time (and for a good reason) does not justify a whole policy change.

At least we don’t have to have an upside-down question mark at the beginning of said question.

My experience is that this is the price you pay if you want to be a Jelly. But I am convinced that some Jellies do not suffer the same scrutiny as others.
Oh well.
Lots of real things to worry about in this life apart from what @Augustlan or whomever thinks of your questions. It’s just a Q and A site after all.

@Sunny2
¿ What kind of weird stuff is you on about

I couldn’t have said it any better than @Bellatrix. Generally speaking, we do want things in the form of a question, but there are rare times when that isn’t as important as leaving the discussion up.

One little note: When we return a question for editing, using the ‘not a question’ reason, it’s not always because it’s not worded as a question. Sometimes it’s because it’s not really a question at all, no matter how it’s worded. Things that read like a blog post, a public service announcement or, “hey, look at this cool video”, get moderated (or should) even when it is worded as a question.

Is a “flapdoodle” like a “flapjack” without the syrup?

Wouldn’t a flapdoodle require cream or chocolate sauce?

And lots of nuts!

Nods. Nuts are essential to the mix.

Yeah, I don’t think that Fluther is lacking in nuts :)

:D

Is a flapdoodle like a cheese doodle, but flapjack flavoured?

in which case, it would require maple syrup.

@rebbel I think it’s in Spanish, they do that for questions.

Flapdoodle: nonsense – piffle – poppycock – fudge

@In Spanish you ask a question like this:

¿ Como está usted? (How are you?)

I thought a flapdoodle was a cross between a basset hound and a poodle.

@thorninmud Can I breed my cockapoo with your flapdoodle and if so, what would it be called? I know! A cockadoodle-doo!

^^Such a pleasant and painless way to increase one’s vocabulary..

Do these guys have dewlaps or wattles?

Dewtles

OMG, I love flapdoodles!

Flapdoodle is a better description than bassetoodle

Let’s all sing (or bark) Doo wattle diddy dum diddy dum

So, we’re done here?

@mrentropy looks like it

:: LAST ROUND ::
who’s buying?

I own a bar. Last round’s on me. What’s your poison, cookie?

Kahlua and cream goes well with cookies!!

@janbb: Ooh, a Sombrero. I love those. Hook me up @SpatzieLover.

It’s gonna be a fun weekend!

Wait. @SpatzieLover owns a bar? How did I not know this?!?

Is she breedmitch in disguise?

I’ve had a bar in my immediate family since I was 3…My sister & I are now the owners..I keep this on the down low, though @breedmitch & I have discussed this on threads in the past ;)

<passes a round of drinks >

Excellent.

Now I want flapjacks.

I prefer poppycock.

@erichw1504: Yes, but the nuts get stuck in my teeth.

So many ways I could go with that, but I won’t say a thing.

@janbb: It’s purposely ambiguous because I knew you’d be swimming along soon. :^)

@guys; Remember the standard that we few, we happy few, we band of siblings have sworn to uphold here; keep it elevated

“keep it elevated” tee hee hee

Would “hold your head up high” work better?

tee hee, tee hee (Can you tell how bored I am right now?)

@gailcalled

That would depend upon which head is being referenced, wouldn’t it?

@Buttonstc Exactimundo! teehee.

Shaking head – you are such a naughty, naughty penguin..