This is the start of a 6-page derailment, led almost entirely by one poster insisting that his definition is relevant to the conversation. It’s explained to him many, many times that even if the source of his definition is valid, it’s clearly not what we’re talking about, and still he persists. Bricker basically single-handedly killed that thread, and any discussion to be had therein. Out of the posts in that thread, he has 1/5th, more than double the next participant, and virtually every single one is trying to prop up a definition that is obviously irrelevant to the discussion. I know for a fact I’m not the only person who’s upset about this, and it seems to have been going on for a while. I reported this at least once, but the mods did not intervene.
Now, that thread is dead, but in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, my question is - why didn’t the mods do anything? Not even “tell the poster to go away”, just a general “get back on topic” or the like. This is basically an open-and-shut case of threadshitting, where one poster posts things barely tangentially related to the thread in an attempt to derail discussion. It’s also a pretty straightforward example of why allowing this is a bad idea. So… Are there rules about this? Should there be? Is what Bricker did fair game? I sure hope not.
In general, mods step in when they are made aware that there’s a hijack underway.
Do you know whether the problem post was reported to the mods? If not, they may not have known about it. Remember, we don’t read every thread in our forums, let alone every post – if you see a hijack underway, report it.
I suppose that would be a better question. I’m just curious as to why it went on so long, and given that others act like this is something that happens a fair bit… I mean, are there rules against this? Do mods generally step in? Or is this a case where they didn’t step in because…?
Derailing a thread is a difficult line to moderate. I can’t speak for Tom or Marley - and don’t hold them to anything I say - but I’ve found that threads have their own life and one posters derailment is another’s reasonable discussion.
Threads have lives of their own…at least sometimes it seems so…and they tend to wander far afield depending on the nature and interests of the OP, the posting participants, and current events and happenings. It can be hard to determine what constitutes a derailment or hijacking. Especially when a mod is coming into a thread during the middle of the discussion without background.
I have tried to redirect a thread when the derailment is egregious - someone bringing up the Iraq war in a thread about something else, for example - but even then it’s a mod note usually instead of anything stronger. I always hope that something that far afield can be set back on track. But that’s not always the case.
Where’s the derailment? GD OP asks why Christians feel persecuted. Bricker answers, “here’s why.” A bunch of people respond that they don’t think that’s a valid basis for feeling persecuted. How is that not an entirely on-topic GD thread?
A BUNCH OF PEOPLE: We don’t like that one. Use ours.
ME: No.
A BUNCH OF PEOPLE: We are unable to continue our thought process.
You did just fine in defining what you meant by the word, and I acknowledged that by that definition, there was no message-board-based persecution. But you seemed unable to handle the fact that I also had a valid definition of the word, complete with cites to the OED.
What baffled you, collectively, about this?
Or was it simple ire that you couldn’t post a Christian-bashing OP and then safely wallow in the chorus of agreement?
The problem was that you knew that the definition you introduced was not the definition under discussion, and yet you persisted in reintroducing said off-topic definition into the conversation. As has been said in another thread, it was the equivalent of using the “artificial human” definition of “android” when it is obvious that everyone else is talking about the operating system. The definition is valid, but does not pertain to the conversation at hand.
And here’s how I know: because few people seemed capable of simply saying, “Yes, Bricker. By that definition, you’re correct. What I mean to discuss is systematic, harsh treatment that involves serious threat.”
If the OP had titled the thread, “Why do Christians feel that they are being caused to suffer because of their beliefs,” and not used the word “persecute” at all, would you have been happy?
It can be hard to define hijacking or derailing a thread in isolation. I’ve never sat down to define my exact criteria, but I would say my concerns include how related the tangent is to the main thrust of the conversation and how much of the thread the side conversation is occupying. If the tangent is not closely related to the main discussion or if it is becoming a big distraction - say, if two posters are angrily going back and forth and it’s disrupting the thread for other posters - I’d be more likely to step in. But it’s also true that conversations take on a life of their own and can drift off subject. If everybody’s OK with that, the mods probably won’t get involved. Moderating a thread that drifts that way doesn’t work very well anyway.
At which point you should have said something to the effect of “In that case I see that the definition I brought up isn’t appropriate for this conversation. Sorry”, and either joined the conversation using the obviously already agreed upon definition of “persecution”, or depart on good terms.
What if a thread doesn’t just drift away after a while, but starts out hijacked? If a thread is directed to one group of posters to get their views on a subject, and is immediately occupied by opposing posters saying disparaging things about the intended audience and putting words in their mouths, would that be a hijack, or would that be a conversation that has taken on a life of its own? Technically, the topic at hand is being discussed, but in the opposite way the OP intended.
Actually, you were told that multiple times. Multiple times. Here, I’ll go post it for you again, in those exact terms, just to make sure you get it. You were informed that your definition doesn’t fit the discussion, that it doesn’t matter, and that you should drop it. And you kept going. Look, I’d rather not another thread drift into this utterly asinine discussion. You’re not an idiot, and neither am I. If your definition mattered for the sake of discussion, the fact that Christians consider themselves persecuted wouldn’t.
And I’m going to go out on a limb here, and be perfectly honest in saying that I do not believe for a second that someone with your history on this board or your intelligence could possibly have made the arguments you made in good faith. That’s part of the problem here, and I’m not the only one who thinks that. This was not “a thread that evolved and changed direction”, this was “Bricker came into the thread and disrupted it on purpose”. I’m not entirely sure how anyone else can look at that thread, knowing you, and see it any other way.
The easiest solution here is to establish a new thread, defining terms early and with specificity. If the thread would have been good before - a space about which I claim no opinion - then it would still be good now, a few weeks later.
The problem, Budget, is that you don’t get to decide what fits in the discussion. The OP of that thread wanted a discussion about how Christians felt, and used the word “persecuted,” in describing the feeling that he wanted to dismiss as imaginary. I pointed out that it was not wrong to use that word to describe conduct directed at Christians on this message board.
Which none of you liked to hear.
But which is nonetheless absolutely true.
Now, as I already acknowledged in the thread, persecution can mean a variety of things, and Christians both here on the SDMB and in American society at large do not suffer serious threats. You’re welcome to accept that statement.
This is absolutely false. I made the point I made precisely because, as a Christian, I have been the object of ill-treatment here on the SDMB.