HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >

Discussion

Isn't it time we stopped permitting certain topics?

LOCKED DISCUSSION

I vote that anything related to tipping, the psychological issues of family members/guests, or "is this safe to eat" no longer be permitted. They add nothing useful, might prove to be dangerous, and waste space that could be devoted to good eats.

  1. Respectfully disagree. The tipping thread that I started recently was very useful (at least to me).

    And it's not like there's a finite amount of "space" that has to be shared. If I come across threads that I think are foolish (and there are many), I simply don't read them.

    47 Replies
    1. re: pikawicca

      No sweat. I spose folks find some use in them, but I think that the tipping threads are all the same, there's nothing that hasn't been said, and they lead nowhere in the end.

      1. re: MGZ

        Yes but just because there is nothing new to you doesn't mean it's not new to someone else. Your age is showing. Do you not think there are people just starting out?

        The answer to not to force others to bend to your will. The answer is to stop reading topics that don't interest you or that you find irrelevant.

        If you find it truly abhorrent, wasteful, stupid or distasteful why not start your own board and lay out the rules that you want? You could have a food board that bans all talk of things you think "add nothing", "waste space" and are potentially "dangerous".

        It is like the posters who cant stand the WFD threads or the COTM ones and want everyone else to change what is working for the majority. Why spend all the time and energy trying to force people do it your way? Either be the change you want to be- ie: don't participate in threads you don't like or start your own board where you can make the rules.

        1. re: foodieX2

          foodieX2, Calm down, good point on people starting out and whats new to other people. But why so harsh, "age is showing" "start your own site" Way over the top! You probably should know that in any debate, argument hyperbole losses you both respect and interest of others in your position.

          1. re: Edwardrae

            I spose that's kinda the point. If someone has a question about tipping, for example, shouldn't the history of the Site provide the starting point? I mean, every time some junior 'hound has an old question, should we rehash an old debate (with the predictable outcome), or should they bear some responsibility to have searched first?

            1. re: MGZ

              But *you* don't have to rehash it. You can skip right past it. If it has been done to death to you just move on.

              Searching only gets a poster so far. Case in point I did a search recently and the only posts were from 2008 and 2010. I read them and then asked questions about what I had read and was taken to task that the places I was asking about contradicted my query. I ended up changing my query, leaving out the info I found in my searches, and got a lot more answers.

              Personally the "can I eat this" threads crack me up as there are always the same three/four answers. Sometime I jump in but most of the time I just ignore it. Life is too short.

              1. re: MGZ

                The search function on this site is not good enough that I feel I can truly depend on it for info from past threads. Besides, someone new might say something interesting.

                Something more important to me would be the ability to delete threads on my profile page should I so desire. I find myself not answering questions I know the answer to because my sole interest is to answer the question, not have the thread follow me around infinitely.

                1. re: Jay F

                  I totally agree about the search function. I rarely have any luck using it...either I get nothing or I get hundreds of threads to look at. If there are tricks to having successful search results, I would love to know what they are.

                  1. re: jlhinwa

                    Several people have recommended just doing a Google search with 'Chowhound' in the phrase, along with your search term. I've found that it works pretty well.

                    1. re: jmcarthur8

                      jmcarthur8, thank you! I just tried doing a few random searches that way and it worked really well! Odd that doing a google search outside of CH nets better results than searching on the CH site itself.

                2. re: MGZ

                  Well...actually I don't mind hearing other perspectives. There are regional and personal differences that can surprise.

                  Also--conventional wisdom re what is or is not acceptable or appropriate changes over time. For instance, in what seems a relatively short period of time, tipping 'norms' have gone from 15 to 20 to even 25 percent. Seeing how social mores/norms morph is interesting to me.

                3. re: Edwardrae

                  It wasn't hyperbole. Our age does show when we say a topic has no use because its been "done to death" and there is nothing to learn from it. In my many years there are a number of subjects that I feel have no use to me anymore but I am not so old to know that to my twenty something nieces the subjects are new. I am not going to get any where by telling them to stop asking questions.

                  If the new site comment sounds harsh I apologize. Its just why change what is clearly working? Why try to impose rules just because you don't like something? Especially when what teh OP doesn't like can easily be avoided.

                  Jim Leff imposed his rules when he started this site. It was his site and he did what he wanted. The internet is a big place and there is always room for new ventures. I am not going to try to force an entire online community to stop talking about something just because I don't like it. If I don't like something I can either avoid it, not participate or create my own. if thats harsh, I am sorry.

                  1. re: foodieX2

                    "I am not going to try to force an entire online community to stop talking about something just because I don't like it."

                    As I have explicitly noted, several times, we should try to read other's posts in "their" voice. To that end, I even try to imply some elements of my "voice" in the way I post. With that in mind, I ask you to note that I had no intention of trying to "force" our community to stop talkin' about anything. I've simply observed, over the years, the redundancy, futility, and, possible liability* that seems to arise from certain types of threads.

                    Consequently, I started this discussion. As you are aware, we are a community. My intention was to suggest some ideas that I thought would be good for us to consider. Even if there is no prohibition on discussions about psychological problems, maybe a few folks now realize that it's probably not worth contributing to, and, more importantly, can see what they really are about.

                    Clearly, the Mods understand that having the 'hounds "talk" about our scope is relevant. Hell, look at how many boards there are now - and they continue to grow. Over time, it has been a rough consensus formed through the dialectic that has led to the present state of the Site. Jim (with Bob) may have opened a portal, but now it's up to all of us to figure out how to navigate into the future.

                    "If I don't like something I can either avoid it, not participate or create my own."

                    The other option is to participate in a way that helps benefit the community.** I rarely read threads on "tipping", but I am a part of this community. If I have an interest in it's overall focus, I will express it. That is our prerogative as 'hounds. If I think I can help make folks think about what goes on here, then I will.

                    As I've "said", I started this thread to open thoughts and conversation. I am glad that you chose to offer your ideas. They have helped to fuel this entire thing. Frankly, I've enjoyed "listenin'".

                    So you know, I frequently avoid threads that Jim has labeled "chatty" and didn't useta to tolerate much. Nonetheless, I sometimes "check in" and see how redundant and potentially dangerous they can be. As discussed, I'm a "Magic House" guy. I realize my opinions are worth sh*t when it comes to food safety, or, honestly, safety in general.

                    "[I]f that[']s harsh, I am sorry."

                    No sweat. It's kinda funny. Bein' the kinda guy I am, I actually really enjoy hearing from other 'hounds who can't see me when they communicate. I seem to get much more honest interactions.

                    * The Site's lawyers have forbidden discussion of using pot as an ingredient, but they're cool with a guy like me sayin' that it's OK to eat chili that sat on the counter all night to someone who might be significantly more feeble.

                    ** Believe it or not, some of us "old" 'hounds do have some wisdom that may be of use.

                    1. re: MGZ

                      I think you are overlooking the fact that this site wants to attract more eyes to boost its attractiveness to advertisers. In the case of threads like tipping one can clearly discern how popular they are by the sheer volume of posts they attract. But advertisers are also famously conservative, and I have the distinct impression that a board discussing cooking with marijuana would probably be counter productive to the site attracting more advertising from the mainstream business community, (at least at the present time).

                      1. re: Servorg

                        You're probably right, Servorg. I'm a pretty solid existentialist, an eager transcendentalist, and an open-minded socialist. I, however, am a really sh*tty capitalist and tend not to see things that way without prompting. I'd bet, however, when weed, inevitably, becomes legal, the advertisers on this Site and the food industrial complex jump on ways to make big money off of cookin' with it. Hell, I even predict that the Food Network (or, whatever it's called) have a "cookin' with pot" show on the air someday.

                        1. re: MGZ

                          And I dearly hope you'll be the one hosting it :-D

                          1. re: linguafood

                            Well, I have no tattoos, cut my hair off a coupla years ago, and look more like a linebacker than a bass player. When FoodTV, found that out, they wanted to know if I could simply produce.

                          2. re: MGZ

                            Hi, MGZ:

                            I live in Washington, where weed IS now legal under our law (and under federal law by virtue of the 10th Amendment). By the end of 2013, we will have a 3-tier system--well-regulated and taxed--of growers, processors and retailers. The "capitalists" are falling all over themselves to get an early "in" on this.

                            Despite weed's present legality here (and inexorable expansion across the country), the Mods deleted a thread I started on the Spirits board about subbing THC tincture for Agostura bitters in mixing Old Fashioneds. They're still really touchy on the subject.

                            There are already weed-based cookbooks available. But I've yet to see a recipe that reads like it would taste good.

                            Aloha,
                            Kaleo

                            1. re: kaleokahu

                              Folks, it's fine to talk about the fact that we have a rule against discussing using marijuana in food (though that isn't going to change as a result of this discussion), but a number of replies here are venturing over into actually discussing using marijuana in food, and this thread can't act as a stand-in for the threads we've removed.

                        2. re: MGZ

                          When deciding the appropriate tip for a buffet do you use the same calculation for a brunch?

                          1. re: MGZ

                            I am certain you will correct me if I am wrong but isn't medicinal marijuana possession considered a federal offense? Regardless of the script written by a physician and the diagnosis to support the script? All of the dispensaries here in the N. California county I reside in have more or less closed voluntarily to avoid federal prosecution.( That ain't stopping nobody!!!!!!). I am an RN by profession so my stance is 100% supportive for the use of medical marijuana. Recipes on Chowhound? Not so much. There are more effective ways of delivery into the system than ingesting P.O. (by mouth).

                      2. re: foodieX2

                        Hey, I'm just opening the avenue for a conversation. I'm inviting opinions, like yours, and appreciate them. I am honestly curious about whether we should continue to debate things like food safety and if it's appropriate to suggest to folks that we know what we're talking about. I mean, I'm cool eating stuff that sat out all night, but that's 'cause in my fortysome years I've learned somethin' about my personal constitution.

                        As to WFD and COTM, the participants are a fraction of the 'hounds on this Site.

                        1. re: MGZ

                          As someone who has only read post relating to restaurants in specific geographic areas in the US and abroad (for a good number of years) and never to the time to look at other categories, I probably would agree with you that most 'hounds don't participate in WFD and COTM on this site. And as one of those 'hounds, I'd very much like to know what WFD and COTM are. I looked at the possible categories and must admit that I couldn't figure this out on my own. So please, even if this is "rehashing" spmething that has been discussed at length before, tell me what it is you are talking about! Thanks...and BTW - the reason I clicked on this thread was that I recognized MGZ from the New Jersey board and was curious to see the responses to the original post.

                          1. re: zidecar

                            WFD=What's for Dinner
                            COTM=Cookbook of the Month

                            1. re: jlhinwa

                              WFD (to which I contribute) and COTM (to which I don't) are not contraversial threads. Readers know exactly what they are and can choose to open them or not. The disputes WFD has had over the time have really been amongst the regular contributors who have liked/not liked shifts in emphasis of the ongoing threads.

                            2. re: zidecar

                              You can find both of these threads (as defined by jihnwa) on the Home Cooking board.

                              1. re: zidecar

                                The Home Cooking board is its own world that could, and probably should, exist outside of Chowhoud. As for the rest of this discussion, I've had my fill of tipping threads as well as all the other usual stuff, but I choose to ignore them, What people want to discuss is their choice and it's my choice not to participate in what I find to be futile or aggravating threads.

                                1. re: SnackHappy

                                  <The Home Cooking board is its own world that could, and probably should, exist outside of Chowhound.>

                                  Why? And where would it go?

                                  1. re: Jay F

                                    There are a few reasons I can think of. Home Cooking was not part of the original CH mandate, but that goes for a bunch of other boards that people use and appreciate. Home Cooking has its own way of doing things and its own feel. People are much chattier there and no one has a problem with that. Home Cooking is also big enough that it could exist on its own. I reckon that a Home Cooking board, that could also include Cookware, Vegan & Vegetarian and Special Diets, independent of CH and presented as All-cooking, all-the-time would probably attract more people and be more useful to Home Cooking users. But that's just me.

                                    1. re: SnackHappy

                                      If you want to enjoy CH's prize rose, you have to endure the thorns, too.

                                      1. re: SnackHappy

                                        With different owners, Chowhound evolved beyond its original, narrow focus. There is no reason to break up the Chowhound of 2013 just because it no longer has the narrow focus that meets your narrow expectations.

                                        Just as people can choose to avoid threads they deem to be repetitive, you can choose to avoid the Home Cooking category, the Cookware category, or anything outside of the geographical categories.

                                        1. re: John E.

                                          Yeah well, I didn't say the opposite.

                                        2. re: SnackHappy

                                          If you don't like HC (or whatever), why don't you just ignore it. Things can get Balkanized to a point where they fail to function.

                                          I don't want to have to go to this subsection, then that subsection, then back out and go to one of the other subsections of the first subsection, etc.

                                          I like being presented with all the threads with new posts when I get here. Then I can make choices. I just did a refresh, and I see there are 5 threads I want to read, 45 I don't. So I'm going to read the five I like, and ignore the rest.

                                          And another thing: I find out a lot of things unintentionally when I'm exposed to them here.

                                            1. re: Jay F

                                              yes Jay, this is why I prefer non-filtered searches, I want to be a little de-railed as sometimes one stumbles on the silliest, most fascinating things you'd never find otherwise. life's more fun with random elements of absurdity.

                                            2. re: SnackHappy

                                              Hmmm I detect an agenda of overt segregation from you. I am not amused.

                                          1. re: SnackHappy

                                            What could be more chowish than cooking at home? I love the fact that this site encompasses everything food-wise. That's what makes it interesting to me. If it were just restaurant reviews, I wouldn't check in here so often.

                                            1. re: justalex

                                              Well, if it were only about recipes, tipping and your favourite childhood foods I would never come here either. Fortunately, we both find what we want here. What I was saying was that I believe that Home Cooking is big enough and different enough from the rest of CH that it could be spun-off and that it could even be beneficial to its users.

                                              I don't know why I'm getting so much grief for that statement.

                                              1. re: SnackHappy

                                                It might be because a large group of CH users very much like the whole community that includes the best places to shop, eat out, and feed ourselves at home. You just might be in the minority that cooking at home is "different enough from the rest of CH."
                                                That's why you are getting grief.

                                                1. re: Terrie H.

                                                  Fair enough, maybe I'm part of a minority who see CH as place to exchange tips about where to find great food. I actually enjoy cooking at home and that's where I eat about 90% of my meals. I just don't like talking about it on CH so much. And I never said "cooking at home is "different enough from the rest of CH." I was talking about the Home Cooking board and a couple of others having a different tone and feel. Many people post almost exclusively on Home Cooking, Cookware and a few other topical boards.

                                                  But whatever people want to do is fine with me. I don't need to approve of everything that gets written on this site. I reckon I must only read 1% or 2% of what gets written here. Why should I care about what the 98% is?

                                                  And I'm not arguing for a spin-off of Home Cooking. I'm just saying it could be done.

                                                  1. re: SnackHappy

                                                    There we go. You are on this site to "find great food" and you use it to find restaurants. Many of us do the same and want to be able to do it at home. Find your restaurant knowledge and avoid the Home Cooking board.

                                                2. re: SnackHappy

                                                  You're getting grief because you want to see the rest of us "spun off". Your words.

                                                  So in your world, this site should only be about restaurant reviews?

                                                  1. re: justalex

                                                    No, I don't. How many times do I have to write it for you guys to get off my back?

                                          2. re: MGZ

                                            As far as *not* allowing certain subjects that sounds a bit too authoritarian and punitive.

                                            1. re: Lillipop

                                              But there are subjects that are not allowed on Chowhound. A recent example was when someone wanted to discuss cooking with medical marijuana and their thread got taken down.

                                              1. re: SnackHappy

                                                I might be incorrect but medicinal marijuana possession is still considered an illegal federal offense. If that is the case then CH might be wise in censoring a *cooking with medical marijuana* thread.....pandering to illicit activities is a liability for them:)

                                          3. re: foodieX2

                                            I agree with foodieX2. Why can't we merely ignore the threads that bore us?

                                            I often see posts saying "We discussed this already -- see link xyz"... and that makes me think: what if I asked a friend, for example, about the Yankees' prospects this year and he merely referred me to a discussion he had previously with others. I'd be quite put out... because the point was more about the discussion than what others might believe. Of course, I can understand merely referring to a previous thread if someone is asking for strictly factual information rather than for a discussion.

                                      2. I think these threads have a place on CH, particularly since they are almost always on the NAF board.

                                        Sure, there are a lot of things hashed to death but there is also useful information.

                                        As an example, I have always been conscientious about being a generous tipper, however it never occurred to me to tip on take out. Having read threads discussing the pros and cons, and getting an education on what it's like to prepare takeout from the restaurant's perspective, I have changed my ways. I am embarrassed that I never got it before and am thankful for the education i have received here.

                                        1. I have gained valuable insight into human nature from the friends and family threads. And I myself have posted a "is it safe to eat" question at one time.

                                          Unless something is offensive I don't think it should not be permitted.

                                          1. If I come across a thread that annoys me I avoid it. What I would rather have is the ability to delete a thread on which I have posted from my profile if I just want it to go away.

                                            1. THIS QUESTION -- the rehash of topics, is why I posted
                                              http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/898101
                                              to Site Talk.

                                              I want NEWWWWW answers. I've been looking for an ethnic dish in my area, and I've been pointed to a thread that's 350+ and started in 2008.
                                              Well, I really, Really, REALLY don't want to wade through all of that, particularly when a sub-part is comparing two restaurants, one of which doesn't even exist.

                                              I like the "rehash." It's fresher and better than piling on to established threads. Once one reaches the 200 replies mark, it gets difficult to absorb all at once.

                                              And, when it's a topic about which ~I~ am tired, I skip it.

                                              EDIT: CH Search isn't really that great, so even if people look before they post, they might not always discover that their topic has been covered. Repeatedly.

                                              1. I wasn't aware that "we" had any right to vote on such things. I thought the site was administered by moderators who have authority over such matters.

                                                6 Replies
                                                1. re: GH1618

                                                  My understanding is that most moderators are volunteers, who therefor have no authority over how the site is run.

                                                  1. re: carolinadawg

                                                    They may not make the policy, but they apply it, don't they?

                                                      1. re: GH1618

                                                        I don't view administering a policy as being the same as making a policy, i.e., having "authority over such matters".

                                                        1. re: carolinadawg

                                                          I didn't say they have authority to "make" policy. They have the authority to apply the policy. Do you suppose that in order to remove a thread, the moderators must submit it to the board of directors of the company, or to the chief executive?

                                                          1. re: GH1618

                                                            If I misunderstood you original post, my apologies. But it seemed you were referring to the moderators having the authority to decide what topics were permitted on the site. I would submit that that constitutes "making" policy. The mods merely delete those threads that do not meet the standards set by others.

                                                  2. I think it's time we stop permitting posts about not permitting posts about certain topics.

                                                    9 Replies
                                                    1. re: ipsedixit

                                                      I do admire your concise way with words, ipsedixit. It's refreshing.

                                                        1. re: ipsedixit

                                                          CH should definitely forbid forbidding *anything*. If they won't forbid all forbidding, what would we have?

                                                          1. re: kaleokahu

                                                            CH already forbids many things...

                                                            1. re: carolinadawg

                                                              Yes, but it takes truly courageous moderation (or no moderation at all) to forbid forbidding...

                                                              1. re: kaleokahu

                                                                No one is forced to read anything. Don't read posts where you don't like the topic. Personal responsibility, please.

                                                                1. re: law_doc89

                                                                  OK, maybe then we should forbid telling others not to read posts. But I still prefer forbidding forbidding.

                                                                  1. re: kaleokahu

                                                                    I forbade you to do such a thing.

                                                          2. re: ipsedixit

                                                            I basically said the same thing and my post was removed by the mods.
                                                            Actually, All i said was that i wish we had an UN-recommend button, so i could un-recommend this topic.

                                                          3. What I don't understand is why you read posts that are on topics you feel have been covered. Nobody is forcing you to read those posts.

                                                            1. I do align myself with most of what has been posted here. So that is contrary to what you have asked in your "discussion"? That in itself is what this site is all about.
                                                              Moreover, giving one the freedom to start a discussion with their own question is quite a powerful tool, afforded us by Chowhowd, whether or not the question has been asked before.
                                                              Has it been said, that all of the story lines have been written already?

                                                              1. Suggest the OP asks a teacher how they deal with having to teach the same thing year after year and answer exactly the same questions that a different group of students asked last year, and the year before, and the year.........

                                                                I reckon every discussion board has its subjects that have been discussed time after time. And, yet, some new poster will ask the question again. And, yes, it usually provokes an angry debate....just like it did last time. Other than food, my main interest is military history and you would not believe the acrimony that arises every time there's discussion about whether a particular general was competent or not. There's about five subjects that you just groan when you see a new thread.And, no, I can never resist joining in - even though one debate got so difficult that threats were made, police had to be contacted, people banned from the board, etc. All over events 100 years ago.

                                                                25 Replies
                                                                1. re: Harters

                                                                  Having read MGZ's most recent contribution to the thread, I'm wondering if I may be having second thoughts, particularly about food safety type discussions.

                                                                  I'm aware that the moderating policy is usually to delete contributions which make reference to customers having had food poisoning after eating at a named restaurant. My undertanding is that this is based on the fact that, without medical evidence, one cannot say that one has been poisoned and, even so, cannot directly attribute it to a restaurant. I assume that this decision is made to avoid the site owners having a potential liability for giving a place a bad name.

                                                                  I now start to wonder if they might rightly have a concern about the "advice" given to people who have, say, left food out overnight, and are asking if it is safe to eat.

                                                                  1. re: Harters

                                                                    I don't believe the site owners are potentially liable under either scenario.

                                                                    In addition to not allowing restaurant food poisoning claims, posting about insects in food, rat infestations at restaurants, etc. is also forbidden. IIRC, this is not for legal reasons, but is due to the fact that none of these allegations can be corroborated. They could be very damaging to a restaurant's reputation. Also, such claims could easily be made by a malcontent bent on doing mischief.

                                                                    As to the "is it safe to eat" issue, only a complete idiot would rely on advice given in an onlline forum concerning life or death matters. In any event, such advice is the opinion of the poster only, and nothing implies endorsement of such opinions by the site owners.

                                                                    1. re: pikawicca

                                                                      "As to the 'is it safe to eat' issue, only a complete idiot would rely on advice given in an onlline forum concerning life or death matters. In any event, such advice is the opinion of the poster only, and nothing implies endorsement of such opinions by the site owners."

                                                                      I graduated from law school in '96. Since then I have seen lots of lawsuits stemming from idiots doing stupid things. Think about it, "Oh my, my coffee was too hot!" If the Site fears no threat of liability, then why do they refuse folks from Washington or Colorado the ability to discuss weed as an ingredient for good chow?

                                                                      1. re: MGZ

                                                                        Perhaps the mods consider a discussion of using an illegal substance as an ingredient to be inappropriate; I certainly do. (I had a roommate in college who insisted on putting pot into just about everything when it was her turn to cook. It was nasty.)

                                                                        1. re: pikawicca

                                                                          It's not the Mods, its the opinion of the Site's counsel. Moreover, weed is not illegal in several states now. I mean, if a terminal cancer patient has been legally prescribed cannabis to help them with their suffering, is it that far from discussing willin' low carb diets?

                                                                          1. re: MGZ

                                                                            I think that's a good point. There are lots of threads that have opened with "I have recently been diagnosed with X. My doc say to stop Y. Looking for ideas and recipes using Z".

                                                                            If the doc recommends ingesting weed why can't they get recipe ideas? Maybe limited to boards where it's legal?

                                                                            1. re: MGZ

                                                                              Medical and recreational are two different things MGZ. Medical is dispensed, taxed and regulated; recreational even at the local level is still under drug policy regulators eye and has a ways to go. Neither is cool by the Feds yet since a) their jobs are at stake (like my DEA bro) and b) because recreational can lead to distribution where Feds rule does stand...so-if you want to push for CH threads that relate to cannabis recipes, add a disclaimer that excludes responsibility from the site. Such forums already exist on the Net. But don't mix medical use with recreational-it's not the same discussion.

                                                                              1. re: HillJ

                                                                                Medical marijuana is legal in eighteen States. Recreational use is legal in two. The prohibition grew out of racism and xenophobia. The legal classification is silly and will be changed within the next ten years.

                                                                                The sad thing is that because of such nonsensical laws, and the rampant availability of firearms, your brother is constantly put at risk when doing his job. I mean, had that boy in Newtown stayed in his basement smoking weed, and playin, video games, instead of goin' out shootin' with Mom, there would be twentysome more kids alive today.

                                                                                I respect what your brother's doin'. I'm the son of a cop. At some point, however, society learns from the mistakes it has made. It's just sad that sometimes those lessons are costly to learn.

                                                                                1. re: MGZ

                                                                                  Huh? Rather a flip commentary on the tragedy in CT. If investigators had also found pot in the kids room or anywhere in the home in addition to what has been reported the parents of those lost children and educators would have been lobbying for drug reform not just gun reform. Granted I don't have the luxury to wax poetic with a brother on the force, not an ex DEA but an active duty DEA, so perhaps my mind shift is different than yours. As an ex lawyer, I find your remarks confusing.

                                                                                  I don't see a correlation between suggesting this site open the forums up to include recipes using weed and the nonsensical laws (your view) currently on the books. Folks who have gotten into the dispense biz in "legal states", including selling laced foodstuffs on medical scripts have been arrested for overgrowing not for selling brownies.

                                                                                  I respect your freedoms Matt but your pov is too lax for my taste even with a few states voting for legalization....that's hardly a free pass society wide.

                                                                                  1. re: HillJ

                                                                                    It's all good, Hill. If I gotta debate with anyone around here, I spose it's best it's you.

                                                                                    I'm just sayin' that we don't let folks possess a plant that is indigenous to our soils, but we do let 'em find a way to buy machine guns without checking into their mental health or arrest record. If my subtle ,analogic reference seemed callous, I'm sorry. Nonetheless, I'd bet that your brother, like my Dad, would agree that law enforcement officials face more of a threat from guns than they do weed. Guys like them are being put in harm's way enforcing a law that the majority of American's don't support, prevents our governments from being able raise revenue, and has led to the US incarcerating more people than any other nation on Earth.

                                                                                    I've given up on actively advocating for the permitting of discussions on marijuana as an ingredient. In this subthread, I've merely been responding to other ideas that have been brought up. The bottom line is that if the lawyers for the Site think that there is the potential for liability associated with discussing "pot brownies", they might want to rethink the idea of permitting the "can I still eat this threads".

                                                                              2. re: MGZ

                                                                                When people write "the mods," I think it's pretty clear that they mean those who set the policy that the moderators apply, which would include the corporation counsel. There's no need to quibble about such a detail.

                                                                                1. re: GH1618

                                                                                  "When people write "the mods," I think it's pretty clear that they mean those who set the policy ..."

                                                                                  I disagree. Jumbling up the role of everyone in an organization leads to confusion.

                                                                                  1. re: carolinadawg

                                                                                    The details of how the Chow site is organized are of no importance to people who post here. We see the posted policies and occasionally see posts from persons representing the site, and that's all we need to know about it.

                                                                                    1. re: GH1618

                                                                                      I disagree with that too, but oh well...

                                                                                2. re: MGZ

                                                                                  Marijuana possession is still illegal throughout the U.S.

                                                                                  Did the mods announce that this was a legal opinion? If so, I missed it. Link, please.

                                                                                  1. re: pikawicca

                                                                                    It'd be interesting to see what the moderating policy would be if I, as a Briton living in Britain, where possession of pot for personal use is not a crime, posted the sort of recipe stuff we've been discussing. This site is not the exclusive preserve of north Americans (although it very often feels like it is), although I presume its operation is governed by the law of the USA.

                                                                                    1. re: Harters

                                                                                      The policy remains the same -- we're not accepting posts on that subject, regardless of who makes them.

                                                                                      1. re: The Chowhound Team

                                                                                        The weed is even more legally available in the Netherlands than in the UK. Would you be taking the same view if I posted on the Europe board where it might be purchased in that country? It really would be just the same as if I posted where you might buy good pork or organic cauliflowers in Amsterdam.

                                                                                3. re: pikawicca

                                                                                  Oh, and maybe, had your roommate had a recourse for good recipes, it might not have been so nasty.

                                                                                  1. re: MGZ

                                                                                    Probably not, as she was always stoned.

                                                                                4. re: MGZ

                                                                                  Assuming you're referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit in Albuquerque in the mid-90s, you might be interested to know that although that's still brought up as a stereotypically frivolous lawsuit, it wasn't. The McDonalds in question really was holding its coffee at a dangerously high temperature (nearly 200 degrees iirc) through negligence. So...

                                                                                  1. re: Jenny Ondioline

                                                                                    There have been several similar suits since then. And, yeah, I used a cliche example, but the bottom line is that there are lots of claims that can survive a 12(b)(6) Motion and cost a defendant significant a great deal, even if they prevail in the end.

                                                                                5. re: pikawicca

                                                                                  Whether they might be liable or not, a publisher may choose not to publish items on any particular topic for other reasons or for no reason at all.

                                                                                6. re: Harters

                                                                                  I doubt they could be liable solely because I can’t seem to recall a single one of those threads every having a universal EAT IT! They range from that to “OMG NOOOOO!! THROW IT AWAY THIS MINUTE! Have you ever HAD food poisoning ????” to the “ Meh- I’d eat it but wouldn’t serve to XYZ people.”

                                                                                  (note I am not a lawyer and don’t even play one on TV.)

                                                                                  1. re: foodieX2

                                                                                    So to be clear, you're opinion about liability potential is based upon no education and no experience?

                                                                                    In a way, that's sorta like permitting 'hounds like me to opine on food safety, no?

                                                                              3. A solution for this, for individuals, would be a
                                                                                Chowhound App.
                                                                                I'm still just stunned that The Powers That Be haven't tried to monetize CH as a >$.99 app. Of course, Hounds would wear out Tech Support and there'd have to be an App Talk Board—so maybe that's why not. But I use bunches of apps that are near mirrors of CH but in other fields--content area produced by the site that changes at least daily in addition to a Huge subset that generates thousands of comments a day. Most of these apps are working out usability issues but they all have most of the functions we've mentioned wanting.

                                                                                5 Replies
                                                                                1. re: Kris in Beijing

                                                                                  Ouch! I dont pay to play anywhere on the net. A couple sites (not CH) get my intellectual property for free, and then integrate it into monetized content.

                                                                                  1. re: Veggo

                                                                                    Actually, isn't that exactly what CH does?

                                                                                    1. re: carolinadawg

                                                                                      Sure, but my contributions here would be difficult to spin into gold.

                                                                                      1. re: Veggo

                                                                                        Not sure what that means, but in the aggregate, all our contributions (provided for free) are monetized to the benefit of others.

                                                                                    2. re: Veggo

                                                                                      "I'm just sayin' " that any decent App would allow some of the following:

                                                                                      block user
                                                                                      ignore user
                                                                                      block topic
                                                                                      ignore topic
                                                                                      promote/ +1
                                                                                      simplified search
                                                                                      enhanced readability
                                                                                      favourite threads
                                                                                      favourite posters
                                                                                      close/open replies within a thread
                                                                                      re-ordering based upon post date/ reply date

                                                                                      And, an app SHOULD be a one time purchase.
                                                                                      There's nothing within Chow or CH that fits the "purchase within app" model.

                                                                                      Here's a new iPhone app thread:
                                                                                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/898452

                                                                                  2. This thread's getting a little unfriendly, so I hope everyone will please dial it back a little. It's fine to discuss these types of issues on Site Talk.

                                                                                    When it comes to contentious threads like tipping and etiquette, we try to strike a balance of allowing the reasonable ones to stand and removing ones that are spoiling for a fight. They're not topics we're going to ban outright, but we do sometimes wish both the askers and the answerers of these questions could post with a little more decorum than they do.

                                                                                    I personally find 'should I eat that?' threads a little dull, but not everyone has the good fortune to live in a magic house, so they may need some feedback on whether they're doing something really, really stupid or just taking a mild risk. Everyone's details are a bit different, so it can be hard for someone to look at previous threads and figure out whether it does or doesn't apply to them.

                                                                                    -- Jacquilynne, Community Manager for Chowhound

                                                                                    13 Replies
                                                                                    1. re: Jacquilynne

                                                                                      How about one that asks, "Does xxxxxxxx have a tic?"? Seems a bit tacky, no?

                                                                                      1. re: Jacquilynne

                                                                                        How about the censorship crowd get its high dudgeon in check since no one forces anyone to read anything. Best way to kill this site is impose the standard of the lowest common denominator.

                                                                                        1. re: law_doc89

                                                                                          Actually, when it comes to dudgeon, mine is extremely low.

                                                                                          1. re: law_doc89

                                                                                            And that's exactly what heavy handed moderation does. This site is already heavily censored.

                                                                                              1. re: linguafood

                                                                                                It would be nice if in sharing experience, those with different experiences wouldn't be too quick to condemn what they don't understand. I think some here have low sophistication coupled with high dudgeon, and LOSOHD is not a good way to foster open exchange.

                                                                                                1. re: law_doc89

                                                                                                  Egad! Low sophistication coupled with high dudgeon. How CAN these folks look at themselves in a mirror?

                                                                                                  1. re: grampart

                                                                                                    I am sure it is hard; oh so hard!

                                                                                            1. re: Jacquilynne

                                                                                              [N]ot everyone has the good fortune to live in a magic house . . . ."

                                                                                              True. I bought Sam's place.

                                                                                              1. re: Jacquilynne

                                                                                                Maybe it would help if, when someone began a thread about a topic, a search would be automatically performed of threads. A message could come up with links to threads discussing the same topic so the poster could see the subject's been posted already. I've seen this on some forums and it seems to cut down on the number of redundant posts about common topics.

                                                                                                1. re: gardenwife

                                                                                                  gwife - now that would be nice, a window that pops up asking "have you seen these?" before one can enter 'Post' like the related topic sidebar that comes up after the thread is posted.

                                                                                                2. re: Jacquilynne

                                                                                                  The only dumb question is the unasked question. I agree with you. The real problem is that some don't like the answers they get.

                                                                                                  1. re: law_doc89

                                                                                                    that's easy law_doc, just ask the same question often enough until you get the answer you seek.

                                                                                                3. After reading this thread it brought a question to mind that maybe you can help me with MGZ.

                                                                                                  When dining at a buffet what do you think is the proper tip percentage?

                                                                                                  3 Replies
                                                                                                    1. re: MGZ

                                                                                                      Lets say you did, would you think it was safe to eat seafood?

                                                                                                      1. re: jrvedivici

                                                                                                        Actually, the raw oysters at the Molly Pitcher were really good. Not quite as good as the scallops my wife and I traded some work for (ungodly sweet - two hours outta the water and still in the shell) or the tuna the guys at Point Lobster sent home with my Dad for me.

                                                                                                        I've never posted on tipping before now, and never will again. But, since you are my friend, I have one rule of tipping. I drop the last digit off the total (easy 10%) and double it and round up to the closest dollar.

                                                                                                  1. I agree with the tipping threads, useless and always go in the same direction.

                                                                                                    1. Accidental "recommend", sorry. Dial back to 3....if anyone is counting.

                                                                                                      1 Reply
                                                                                                      1. re: Bacchus101

                                                                                                        (Bacchus -- just click on "recommend" again to remove your approval.)

                                                                                                      2. I have no preference for what is or isn't discussed on Chowhound. What makes this forum so appealing is the membership is diverse, passionate and dedicated 24/7.

                                                                                                        I have noticed more nitpicking but maybe it's just a slow quarter for hounding and there's nothing else to discuss?!

                                                                                                        If we're keeping score, I love you guys. Imperfections rock.

                                                                                                        3 Replies
                                                                                                        1. re: HillJ

                                                                                                          Hill, we love you too.

                                                                                                          1. re: MGZ

                                                                                                            MGZ, you make Sisyphus look like a slacker.

                                                                                                            And I mean that in all the best possible ways. For your sake I hope someday your boulder never rolls down that hill. But gravity and physics being what they are ...

                                                                                                            1. re: ipsedixit

                                                                                                              Aw, hell, ipse, I love you too. In fact, I'm not sure there's another 'hound who'd I'd rather go to dinner with, on the condition that you picked one spot and ordered for both of us and then I picked one and did the same. No questions asked. I would be willin' to permit you one off limit ingredient, but, I should warn you, if you go with filet-o-fish, I'm probably gonna follow up with "red sauce" Italian or rare steaks.

                                                                                                        2. Since Chowhound is based on the generation of free content to provide entertainment to produce advertising revenue, I feel we should delete topics that do not generate at least 25 responses in 48 hours.

                                                                                                          Also delete any requests for the best restaurant in any town or area with a population of less than 100,000.

                                                                                                          Everglades City and Sebring?? For Chow worthy food? Really!??

                                                                                                          Any reference to a producer of X that is not on the web and sells out the entire months production at the farmers market in 10 minutes as the best type of X in the world. Like I am actually going to be able to get some and compare.

                                                                                                          Any reference to "Authentic".

                                                                                                          Any request for best wines under $5 a bottle. Or meals under $2.

                                                                                                          4 Replies
                                                                                                          1. re: INDIANRIVERFL

                                                                                                            "Also delete any requests for the best restaurant in any town or area with a population of less than 100,000."

                                                                                                            Have to disagree with this.
                                                                                                            I can find good to great food in Manhattan, Chicago, Paris.
                                                                                                            Floyd's Knobs, Indiana? Elkhart, Texas? Help me Chowhounds!

                                                                                                              1. re: Jay F

                                                                                                                I read it like 1000x -- sarcastic?
                                                                                                                Must Be... wait...no... um....

                                                                                                                I'm still not sure.

                                                                                                                However, I AM sure that I disagree with what I Think IR is saying IF IR is Not posting tongue-in -cheek.

                                                                                                              2. re: pedalfaster

                                                                                                                I think your sarcasm detection meter needs a tune up.

                                                                                                            1. Folks, we think this thread has pretty much run its original course. Plus several other courses. We're going to lock it now.