Can we have a "freer discussion" option with looser modding on hijacks?

About This Message Board
1

I doubt I am alone in my opinion that the modding of “off-topic posts” and “hijacks” on this board is strict to the point of stifling discussion.

It’s to the point where I see posters openly stating their fear that they will be modded on an otherwise innocent post: “I hope this isn’t a hijack, but…” It’s like on YouTube, where the creators are always saying, “I’m going to be demonetized for this,” or, “I’m not doing xyx in order to avoid a copyright strike,” etc.

Shit-posting, thread-shitting, and hijacks intended to derail the discussion are bad. But IMHO, 90%+ of modded “hijacks” are posts that involve no bad intentions and are actually adding to the discussion. Sometimes, yes, they end up being fairly major digressions, but if the participants are digging the discussion, I don’t see the harm (especially if the OP is involved and doesn’t mind).

Now I am sure there are those who will argue back and say that things are absolutely perfect as they are now, and I’m just wrong. But I have a proposal that could perhaps please most everyone: Why not allow a “freer discussion” option?

There would be something put in the title (such as “free discussion”) that would indicate that this is the intention of the OP, and then that thread would not be modded for hijacks that don’t involve a bad intention. This would also free up the mods to focus on things of a more (IMHO) serious nature. And if posters do not like such free discussions, then they could avoid such threads.

I will also note in passing that I’ve been here since the early 2000s, and I don’t remember hijack modding as being anywhere near as strict as it is now, I remember it as mostly focused on genuinely bad behavior, and I don’t recall this as being a problem (there were lots of other problems, to be sure…).

I do think hijack modding is significantly hurting the board, and I think the above proposal would go a long way to solving the problem.

All IMHO and respectfully submitted for the mods’ and posters’ consideration.

2

Agreed

3

Sorta agree. I think some mods are too quick to label an aside as a hijack. It’s not a terrible situation though, mods just need some patience to see if a brief aside is an actual hijack. OTOH it’s very easy to split off a new thread and Dopers should be better at doing that when a side conversation begins.

4

While I’d classify this issue more as a minor irritant and not one that is “significantly hurting the board,” I don’t see any harm in testing this for a week or two.

5

If it keeps OPs from being banned from their own threads (a bridge too far, IMO) I like the idea.

6

Can’t the off topic posts just be split into their own topic and linked from the original topic?

7

That’s always tough though. Most people aren’t looking for a full discussion of some tangential point that they just have a question about. I know there’s been times where I have a few questions about something, but either those questions are hardly worthy of their own thread or, in many cases, I don’t even have enough knowledge about the subject to start a new thread about it.

In any case, there’s got to be a middle ground between moderating even slightly off topic posts immediately, and letting it spiral out of hand.

What if the mods loosened up the reins, just a bit, WRT hijacks, but we’d also allow the OP to try and get things back on course without calling it Jr Modding.

They can, but I think the point here is that’s not something everyone wants. Personally, I don’t mind when threads meander a bit.

8

But in a long thread, there could literally be a hundred or more such candidates for a split, and it’s hard to judge when to do that, especially since it is unknown how much interest or participation the new thread will garner.

Thread-splitting is definitely the way to go in some cases, but in most it will just result in a new thread that is DOA, cluttering up the board.

9

Something I’d like to see is the OP having some say in what’s considered a hijack in their own thread. I hate when I see threads getting modded for hijacks when, as far as I can tell, the OP didn’t seem to have an issue with it. That is, it seems like sometimes mods make a thread’s scope narrower than the OP intended.

Also, another problem we have is threads getting moved. If I start a thread in IMHO about politics and it gets moved to P&E, that’s going to stifle discussion. Over the years we’ve had a similar, but opposite, issue where threads get moved to the pit and any chance of a rational discussion is gone.

10

It’s a virtual ‘board’. How can it get cluttered? If the new thread doesn’t go anywhere it will drop off the list.

11

Overall I agree with this.

I’m reminded of the “CONNECTIONS” columns by James Burke in Scientific American. I was always fascinated at how he could connect together seemingly unrelated factoids and events into a coherent whole. Similarly, when I read many SDMB threads, it reminds me of seemingly unrelated things that hopefully add to the discussion if I mention them. I think we have intelligent people here on the boards and that’s how the minds of many intelligent people work: by seeing connections and weaving them together. Of course there needs to be limit or every discussion turns into a free-for-all.

I can therefore see how completely derailing a topic is undesirable, like if you get 15 or 20 posts discussing something completely unrelated to the main discussion at hand. But I personally have no issue with little asides and brief digressions.

12

True; and it seems to me that the mods are usually in that middle ground.

I believe this is approved, even if it’s not the OP doing it, as long as it’s done as a nudge and not as giving orders.

13

Frankly, if someone posts something like “I know this is a hijack, but…”, they should just erase it.

14

No one wants moderation for the tangents they participate in or have interest in. The problem is everyone else who is watching the thread and doesn’t care about that particular tangent.

I get it, I’m annoyed when something i find interesting is squelched, or when I have to follow links to the split threads only to see them quickly die out. But I’m happy trading that for all the cases where I get alerts for threads of interest, only to see yet more off-topic posts.

There are certainly instances where I think moderation was too strict, but overall I think they do a decent job of letting things go a few posts before stepping in.

But I don’t see a problem with the OP’s suggestion for an explicit “hijacks allowed” tag on threads. It might be an interesting experiment.

15

I think this is doable, though it goes counter to the January 2020 P&E/GD rule revision.

Specifically this part:

  • Keep threads specific and debatable. No wide omnibus threads. We want to see clear, specific topics and thread titles. Large omnibus threads are actively detrimental to the long-term success of the boards. A thread entitled, “Tax Policy” is too broad. One entitled, “Should a National Sales Tax be enacted” is better. Keep it clear and specific. This also requires participants in the thread to remain on specific topics as well.

I can add a tag for #free-discussion or maybe brainstorm a slightly better name for it.

I need @Aspenglow & @raventhief to at least chime in on this. Though any other Mods input would be most welcome, especially those that were on staff when these rules were implemented.

I would welcome a trial for this as it should actually make the forums easier to moderate and improve the experience for users that enjoy the free ranging threads. But it still defaults to clear, specific topics and thread titles.

Someone asked about splitting topics. That is actually a fair amount of work, loads of complaints from posters that suddenly find themselves the OPs of a thread and a royal pain in the ass if I’m on my phone instead of a computer. Coming up with a reasonable title can be a minor pain, etc. All this as people don’t use the Reply as a linked Topic feature and hijack threads.

If you are responding to something in a thread that is basically off-topic or likely to lead to a hijack, try this:

How to Reply as a linked Topic:

Click Reply, in the upper left corner of the reply window is the reply type button, looks like a curving arrow point to the right.

Choose Reply as linked topic and it starts a new thread. As an example, you can choose GD, IMHO or The Pit for it.

That is actually the best method.

Or use the Reply as a linked Topic option. But yes, if you know it is a hijack, don’t post it.

16

I’ve had a couple grumbles, but personally I find the moderation to be pretty dialed-in in terms of avoiding hijacks. Particularly in the sections of the board I frequent (mostly P&E), where people have strong opinions and passions can run high, a tangent can quickly degenerate into a running back-and-forth interwoven with the main discussion of the thread, making it difficult to follow. And I haven’t felt that the mods rush to moderate simple asides that die out after a couple posts. YMMV.

17

Thanks for this! I’ve been using Discourse since it came out and never knew about this feature.

18

Cool, I’ve got two macros for it and have been posting it a lot as it is kind of a hidden feature.

How to Reply as a linked Topic

Click Reply, in the upper left corner of the reply window is the reply type button, looks like a curving arrow point to the right.

Choose Reply as linked topic and it starts a new thread. As an example, you can choose GD, IMHO or The Pit for it.

That is actually the best method.

19

It seems to me that this proposal would require more time spent, by the busy volunteers we call “moderators,” in deciding what is and is not an allowable hijack in threads that are marked in this way. I am also not at all clear how easy or difficult it is to discern ill intent on the part of a poster of a potential hijacking post.

That said, if mods are willing to try it, I have no issue with at least a test period. But I hope there is something more obvious to readers than a new tag. I, for one, don’t pay much attention to tags, and have no desire to start. So the indicator needs to be part of the thread title, as big as the rest of the thread title. In my opinion.

20

I would say no modding of hijacks in the thread unless they are reported for having ill intentions: blatant thread-shitting, for example.

Hijacks that are dumb will burn out quickly; those that engender further discussion will be fine, since they are things that people are wanting to talk about. At least, that’s my theory.

I think so long as the mods know not mod hijacks in the thread, that would be sufficient, but I agree that something in the title could also be helpful.