The iron grip on news threads is appreciated and the only reason I keep opening the Ukraine thread. “Should” statements are often the culprit (country/leader/UN/ol’ Musky should do XYZ.)
I think that’s a good idea, and so much better than ten warnings or total closure. Especially if it’s explained as temporary. Otherwise it looks like total closure, and I often shrug and move one and never come back.
I would love it if a mod explained it, just like that, when they closed a thread while they figured it out. Even saying “I’m not sure what to do here” would humanize the process, so it doesn’t feel authoritative (say, a new Twitter owner closing discussions he doesn’t agree with…).
Splitting threads can’t always be done cleanly. What do you do when someone replies to multiple folks in the same post, and some of those replies are part of the hijack and some aren’t? And even in the best of cases, a split-off thread usually ends up a bit disjointed. There was also a case recently where a split-off thread had a title given to it by a moderator, and the (now) OP of the thread felt that the title (which he didn’t choose) didn’t properly reflect his position.
That said, it is one tool in our toolbox, and sometimes it is the best tool for a job.
See, this is interesting. I reported that thread twice due to one post.
Talking about–and dunking on – Herschel Walker seems completely in line with the thread. Someone could come in and defend him, and that’d also be on-point. But when someone called Herschel Walker a “brain damaged moron,” someone else came in and called Fetterman a brain-damaged moron.
First, that’s a low goddamned blow, to talk about someone with a stroke that way. That’s low even for P&E. That’s low for the pit.
Second, though, it was nothing but a hijack. Fetterman had nothing at all to do with the thread.
So I reported the post. And nothing happened. And most of the rest of the posts in the thread were indeed about that hijack–until Walker started talking about vampires and werewolves.
As stupid as the conversation about vampires and werewolves is, it’s what brought the thread back from a contemptible hijack. It saved the thread.
It’s a case where I wish the rule against hijacking threads were applied with a teensy bit more stringency–especially given the tendency of the poster in question to drop exactly that sort of stink-bomb into threads.
I don’t see the usefulness of responding if you don’t explain, so I shall attempt to do so.
short version:
The issue is that it was specifically called out as one of the types of threads that make female posters feel unwelcome. It comes across like we’re some sort of men’s club, objectifying women.
More nuance:
That said, if you look at the thread, the OP uses a female name. So it would suggest that she was actually interested in whether or not posters would find her attractive if she wore pigtails. I would argue that such is not inherently problematic.
That said, the woman in question is gone, and the thread had already devolved to the point in the first paragraph. No need to keep it around and encourage more such posts.
It’s not the worst example of the type of stuff that used to be allowed here but isn’t anymore. But it’s still a decent example. It would be a more clear cut example if the OP were clearly male.
The main reason to use it as an example, though, is that it was very recently closed. It’s easy to recall.
I had the same thoughts, and nearly reported the same post, but what stopped me was that Walker clearly suffers from CTE, which is as much a medical condition as a stroke is.
…y’know, I had not even thought about that, and that changes my response a bit. It’s pretty gross to use brain-damage as an insult against someone who’s suffered actual brain damage. Thank you for pointing that out.
Thank you. Combined with your post about how most hijacks are accidental, this is the first time I’ve understood why you considered that the better idea.
I still personally think a long shutdown of a thread can do more damage to the conversations (as conversations are contemporaneous), and that the mods should use this tactic only when necessary, but I do at least understand your POV better.
And, for the record, I was sympathetic to WE as soon as he said he wasn’t actually sure if the thread needed to be closed down. My only real issue with him is that I often think he’s too terse—just like he thinks I’m too verbose. I’m a fan of more explanation, not less.
(See also previous post.)
From sane, decent humans, yes. From others… not so much.
True.
It wasn’t really all that bad until the “biker” thing got in there.
I agree with you completely, and I would hope that indecent discussion in such a thread might draw a note or something.
It is to the board’s credit that we are able to have discussions such as this (even if the majority of you guys are wrong! 
)
Heck, I keep reading the thread title wrong.
(“Look, can we just talk about how popular superhero movies have gotten lately? I don’t want to spend a lot of time on how good or bad they are, but it’d be nice to briefly discuss what folks are into these days.”)
Define a “long” shutdown. As What_Exit notes, a hijacking can happen pretty quickly. Is a 15-minute shutdown long enough to cool things down) (I sincerely believe there are some posters waiting for the shutdown to end to post their brilliant, or hilarious, or someone-is-wrong-on-the-Internet response to the hijacker.) Is 24 hours too long? Is 24 hours too long on a holiday weekend when mod coverage is light and spammers are reviving 20-year old threads?
This isn’t a real time medium. Never has been.
Back in the day when there was so much action at SDMB that a thread locked for e.g., 24 hours would be on page 3 of the vBulletin equivalent of the “Latest” tab, if not farther back, I could see an argument that 24 hours was excessive.
Nowadays with SDMBs’ total content moving so much more slowly, I think a couple hours is enough for the protagonists to go do something else for a while besides tit-for-tat at each other. Without burying the thread so far down it’ll never be noticed by anyone else.
I’d favor a 2-hour timeout, or until the mods get their plan together, whichever takes longer. Which on a holiday weekend might be 3 days.
One thing for all of us to get used to since we switched to Discourse a year or two ago (!), is that the “locked” icon doesn’t mean “locked forever”. It means “locked for now” until you read the mod note at the end to see whether it is indeed a final permanent lock.
That was indeed part of the discussion. Personally I don’t mind the short bans while the mods clean things up. It takes longer than 15 minutes on average to write a decent post, so anything shorter than that is minimal disruption. And you can possibly got somewhat longer.
But 24 hours is well within the range where the mods deliberately choose to shut down a thread to give people a chance to calm down. If you deliberately use a timeout to interrupt threads, then I don’t think it makes sense to argue that the same timeout doesn’t actually interrupt the conversation.
The mods have made their case for why this particular situation was warranted. And my post you are replying to is admitting that their decision made sense in that one instance, where no one was going to be around. My actual issue was always how much everyone, including the mods, were downplaying it, acting like it was nothing at all. I did not think that was warranted.
The whole reason I said anything was that I felt like we had two extremes in that thread, both rather emotional. You had one side getting offended that a thread was closed, and using that to prove their pet theories that the moderation here is horrible. You had the other side being defensive about that, and seemingly overstating their position (and definitely being rather snarky).
(Honestly, this is why I wish ATMB were moderated more tightly for tone. It’s clear that harshly worded complains cause hurt feelings and defensiveness. And it always seemed to me that the whole point of moving complains from the Pit to the then new forum was to try and avoid that.)
I think the rational choice is to acknowledge the downsides of closing threads for extended periods, while also noting the upsides.
Quick question. I’m the Mod most likely to shutdown a thread. I’ve leaned on this tool heavily. I can’t think of another time I closed a thread for more then maybe 45 minutes. Usually I keep it between 9 and 20 minutes due to a variety of variables like how many people I see are still typing replies.
The exception is a clear problem in a thread outside my forums where I’ve closed them until a Mod for that forum has a chance to review. These have been fairly extreme as I recall and very rare.
Do you feel 20 minutes is too long? I can go along with 45 minutes is too long. I figured that out myself as I gained experience.
I actually had one this week where the poster still posted in violation of the Modnote many hours later. There is no fix for that.
We’ve communicated before on a couple of occasions. Though we have had different views on occasion, I greatly appreciate your efforts far more than I feel critical of them.
Having said that, within the past couple of years my impression was that you were more active than previous/other mods. I really was not aware of you as a poster or mod before the. My impression is that other mods seem to have been increasingly following your practices. But I certainly have not been keeping count, and I readily could have missed the sea change of which you were merely a part. I think in one of our exchanges you may have pointed me to the 2020 rule chages - of which I had previously been unaware. Not sure if there was ay interplay with my tech incompetence which kept me offline for some time after the changeover to Discourse (which I still do not fully grok.)
Even 45 minutes is not too long. No more than an hour, except in dire circumstances? what is so damn critical that people need to post or reply in a short time?
This is not a problem to me.
In general, moderating hijacks is a good thing. But sometimes in PE, due to the political leanings of the majority of posters, one side gets all of their shots in, including even personal jabs, and a moderator comes in to declare a hijack. That leaves the other side, or a third side, unable to respond. Yes, someone could start a new thread, but the original thread is left with largely only one POV presented.
Which is why I try to staffnote all the Posts that are part of the hijack and I do so regardless of side you’ll have to admit.
I also hide some of the Hijacks under the Detail Spoiler.