Rules clarification, please.
In a recent thread, I accused someone of threadshitting, and got a mod notefor it.
Is this actually against the rules? I’ve seen many other people do the same without ever getting mod noted for it.
A few examples:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18371149&postcount=106
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18255080&postcount=46
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18221593&postcount=93
It’s junior modding if nothing else. If you think someone is threadshitting, you should report it rather than trying to police it yourself.
And “I don’t remember seeing this modded before” is not a defense. The post may not have been reported, or there may have been other circumstances why it wasn’t modded.
I’ve accused people of threadshitting before and never been warned/noted for it. I noticed Asimovian said something to someone today for it as well.
But then, I’ve feel like I’ve noticed Asimovian doling out note and warnings more often than I’m used to seeing from other mods.
Expect the ‘we can’t read all the posts in all the threads’ response.
ETA, Colibri said it, but posted it before mine went through, the boards have really been crawling the past day or two.
I see that I was involved in the second link. I don’t recall whether that was reported or not. However, considering that another poster was involved in a more severe violation in the same thread I may have just let it slide while dealing with that.
In the first place, I’m not mounting a defence. Just trying to clarify the rules so I don’t break them in future.
Secondly, it’s rather more than “I don’t remember seeing this modded before.” It’s a regular occurrence on the Dope. People have accused other people of threadshitting hundreds of times. I’ve looked through several dozen threads and seen only oneother mode note, all the rest passed without comment. And in some of them, there was moderator action against other posts in the thread. The mods presumably saw the word “threadshit” and did nothing about it. When I see people doing a certain thing hundreds of times without mod action, the default assumption is that it is within the rules.
I’ve been doing it the entire time I’ve been here. And my posts along those lines have been stated previously to expressly not moddable.
It’s my understanding that telling someone they are threadshitting is not necessarily invoking the rule. We don’t necessarily mean you broke the rule against threadshitting. Mostly because it takes a certain level of threadshitting before any moderation can happen.
And it’s not like we can’t post the meaning behind threadshitting: “If you don’t like the topic, you don’t have to read or post in it” means the same thing as “You’re threadshitting.”
Hi all. Sorry to not have replied earlier. My son was in a bad car wreck last night and in an abundance of caution he was taking to the hospital on a backboard. We were there pretty late waiting on CAT scans and xrays. He’s fine, and it was pretty amusing to see the cast of characters that parades through the ER on the Friday night of Memorial day weekend.
Don’t mean to ramble, but I’m still processing the sight of seeing my kid on a backboard in an ER.
Anyway- This is an example of where the context of the post and the thread comes into play. Calling someone out as threadshitting in and of itself doesn’t generally warrant a mod note even though it can be jr modding. In this case the callout coupled with the instructions to “start your own thread” together made the call of threadshitting drift more into the junior modding territory. I did mean what I said- it’s always better to report threadshitting posts that try to call them out yourself. That said, not every time some calls out a post for threadshitting will it be mod noted.
In this case, my main concern was nipping the possible derailment of yet another religion thread into a “was Jesus real or not” debate in the bud. I was protecting the thread for everyone was enjoying an interesting discussion, including the two posters I directed my mod note at. I tend to err on the side of brevity when I give mod notes but this may have been a case where the instructions would have benefited from a little more exposition.
Hope that puts into context why this particular case warranted a mod note.
Yes, another poster was involved in a shockingly more severe violation. It had nothing to do with the fact that if the mods agree with a poster who violates the rules, the poster’s fine, but if the mods disagree, the rule’s enforced.
This is one of the problems here. I realize all of you come here with good intentions, and moderate honestly, but it seems that the pages you are both reading in the Mod Manual of Procedure are open to interpretation.
I disagree that it’s jr. modding to accuse someone of threadshitting in your thread. Nor should it be. It might be threatshitting to do so if it’s not your thread, but seriously, it’s no where near jr. modding.
Threads often go sideways and asking a mod to undo the threadshitting sidetrack can take hours or longer. By the time a mod responds, the damage is done, and the thread is hopelessly lost in the hijack*. Allowing a poster to politely request a return to topic using the “threadshitting” term should not be considered jr. modding and allowed provided it complies with the other rules.
What’s worse, IMO, is when the mod does show up and just sort of throws their hands up and says ‘I’m closing this’ or ‘off to the pit’ which isn’t really fair to the OP.
Thirding that, if I see it or if it’s reported, I will usually tell someone who is telling another to quit threadshitting not to jr mod.
As mods, we regularly get a lot of reports from posters who think others are threadshitting. Now, speaking only for myself (but assuming it’s the same for other mods, at least of my forums, whenever the case was “no action was taken”), there are many times when a post is reported for it, I’ll read the post in question, and I won’t think that the post is a threadshit in any way.
To me, this means that “threadshit” in itself, is highly open to interpretation…and thus shouldn’t be called out on by the poster but reported instead, letting the mod handle it.
Because the worse case could be someone saying “Hey, you’re threadshitting!” when the mods don’t feel that any such thing has happened, in which case, if that causes a fight or argument in the thread, the one who started it would probably be the one modded and that sanction would probably be “If you have a problem with a post, report it and let the mods decide.”
We don’t have special rules for OPs*. Jr modding is jr modding, and it makes no nevermind who’s doing it.
*Other than rules that pertain to the actual Original Post.
Of course, as posters we lack the ability to identify a duck when a feathered bird waddles by quacking. Because we are incapable of correctly identifying a duck, we must call upon a mod to correctly identify said duck least a fight, or argument, ensues over the identification of said bird. Never mind that by the time the mods arrive, the duck is already roasted and eaten.
Dumb rule.
Believe whatever you want. Any regular reader of GQ knows that I regularly enforce the rules against posters I might agree with, and in favor of posters I might disagree with.
Sorry to interrupt this conversation, but I’m glad your son is okay, IvoryTowerDenizen.
Except just not in the case cited above, right? Because obviously a note with TWO topics in it would have been…what? Too hard to devise? Too difficult to word? Too confusing for readers to understand?
Yeah, those explanations are far more credible than the wildly implausible, “I modded what I disagreed with, and ignored what I agreed with.” That would NEVER happen and any evidence that suggests it is being viciously misinterpreted.
Nonsense, of course it is. If for some reason the mods all got together and decided that the acronym “YMMV” was now a grave insult to be severely moderated against, and I got a mod warning for it, I’d have ample reason to argue that “I don’t remember seeing this modded before”. I think all SDMB rules should either be vigorously enforced or eliminated - you will always have Rule #1 to fall back on in times of uncertainty.
This was the entirety of Peter’s post:
That looks like Jr. Modding to me.
That’s a good and reasonable attitude. With that in mind, best practice IMHO would be to politely point out that Czarcasm is engaging in an hijack of the thread. The idea isn’t to shut him down, but rather to point at that his posts are irrelevant to the main question. (I’m not sure his posts are in fact irrelevant: I’m just attempting to re-express your position in an appropriate manner.) I’ll note that hijacks are permissible and occur, but that it is polite to acknowledge them as such.
(As for your examples, one was a perfect match, the others less so, again IMHO.)
Upon review, I retract this claim.
Thank you. I appreciate it.