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

About This Message Board
21

I’m going to be the turd in this punchbowl that says I don’t want this change. Hijack rules are already hard enough to moderate without throwing additional uncertainty into the process. “Is this too much of a hijack?” “Is the OP of this thread ok with my hijack?” Just… no.

The hijack rules came into effect because a majority of posters wanted them, and over the years as this discussion continues, the majority of posters continue to prefer them.

If I’m the mod who’s being too strict about hijacks, then I am asking those who believe this to be true to contact me privately and let me know where and when this is the case. I think all three of us would prefer to know if it’s a particular one of us causing the problem so we have the opportunity to make changes. But speaking generically about “mods being too strict” is not helpful.

My usual practice is to let hijacks run for about 10 posts before stepping in. However, there are circumstances where I will act sooner, such as when the OP of a thread flags a hijack. They are entitled to have the discussion they started. And there are some topics that nearly guarantee a lengthy hijack will ensue: Bernie Sanders and Israel are two that come to mind. I believe there are some posters here who know this and amuse themselves by introducing these topics just to derail a thread.

Similarly, posters can’t know how many flags we reject for hijacking behind the scenes. We don’t jump on every hijack. If a thread has righted itself or shows promise to right itself, I reject the flag. I don’t try to preemptively judge if a hijack is going to continue except as noted above.

I am not a fan of splitting threads, although I will do it if a topic arises organically from an existing thread. But as @What_Exit notes, it’s a lot of work and it pisses some people off. Additionally, I think it rewards posters who aren’t mindful of the rules.

I think a certain number of posters don’t like to be told they are asked to exercise discipline over their posting practices in our two forums that require it, P&E and GD. But that’s what mod notes are for.

Your theory is a pleasant fantasy. Some stupid hijacks can run to dozens and dozens of posts with no sign of abating without moderator intervention. I offer this thread as proof:

I will no longer intervene in the above thread, it’s so out of hand.

22

I’ve felt that thread drift has been over-moderated here as of the last couple years, but, hey, it’s not my board. I liked the free-flowing asides and diversions (for the most part), but most of the time, not enough to start a-whole-nother thread about when maybe a half dozen or so posts will do.

23

Seconding all parts of this.

No, because posters may be bugging them by reporting hijacks.

– it occurs to me that the late lamented snopes boards had a single thread titled Unhijackable. You could post anything at all in there (well, within the terms of the board, which had no Pit or equivalent.) I don’t know whether that would satisfy the people wanting less hijack moderation, though, as it was just that one thread.

24

The problem is most message boards are late and/or lamented, which makes me wonder what changes could lead to the same fate.

25

Well, the problem with the snopes boards was primarily Snopes. But I grant that the decline in message boards in general has other reasons.

26

The readers need to know too, before perhaps spending time wading through hijacks that they would rather not have to deal with, which threads are “open” and which are “strict.”

27

You mean if the participants who agree with your view on hijacks are digging it.

I hate seeing a flurry of activity in a timely thread only to find a hijack.

28

Such a good point.

There will be threads started that are of enormous interest to many people on the Board. However, an OP could preclude any mod intervention into hijacks in those general interest threads simply by tagging them as “freer discussion.” So, what, we’ll have two parallel threads discussing the same issues? One moderated as per our regular rules and one unmoderated?

No offense, but that looks like an entitled cluster fuck to me.

29

Thanks for the reasonable response. I do agree with many of your points.

I would say no modding of hijacks unless they are reported for having clear ill intentions. I think that’s a pretty clear line that would save the mods time.

Your comments about how carefully you mod hijacks is appreciated. I do think the mods here are disciplined and fair most of the time. Nevertheless, I think the rules and board culture are quite strict and uptight (and were not this way 20 years ago–though it wasn’t all better then either). And, in 2024, we don’t have a lot of options for general online discussion beyond Reddit, so my motivation is to make the Dope work for me and others. A little looser would be better for more people, IMHO.

I understand, but are the people in that thread having a bad time?

Again, personally, very little of what I see modded in P&E is something that bothers me. More often than not, I find the modding response to be value-subtracting. Which again, to be clear, is not to say that you are not doing your difficult jobs well per board rules and culture. All IMHO.

30

I agree with this, I appreciate the tightly focused conversations in the strongly-modded forums, and I support its continuation.

I don’t agree that an OP should have any kind of veto on what does or doesn’t constitute a hijack to his or her thread. That just opens the door to borderless omnibus rambles that become impossible to follow or moderate. If someone wants a less restrictive thread like that, start it in IMHO or the Pit where digressions are accepted. Not in Politics or Debates. No.

31

But worse for all the people who are disagreeing with you.

This keeps coming up. You seem to think that you’ve got a majority opinion. I don’t see evidence for that.

Personally, it doesn’t bother me to have wasps all over the house. I don’t assume this is true of most people.

32

It is a good point. Namely, that there are multiple POVs and preferences with respect to hijacks.

I’m not saying this because I get my wrist slapped for hijacks now and again. I’m saying this because seeing others constantly getting their wrists slapped and worrying about whether what I say will get my wrist slapped is burdensome and significantly reduces the utility of the board to me. It’s not a morality play to me–it’s a posting and participation style. And I don’t think my personal preference is some crazy outlier, either. Nor do I think preferring very narrow discussions and strict hijack modding is crazy, either. Different strokes and all that.

Parallel threads are extremely common in P&E anyway. Also, it would not be unmoderated. It would not have moderation of hijacks unrelated to ill intentions.

33

Being a moderator is a tough job and excellent moderation has kept this board largely free from trolls, very civil relative to most sites, and loyal to its roots of 25 years.

Moderation would have to be very unreasonable for me to comment on it. And I don’t think this is at all the case, even though I am occasionally chastised. Keep up the great work. The people who complain are not generally the volunteers putting in the time.

34

Yes, that is why I am proposing an option, not a global rule change.

I do. Modding for hijacks is far and away the No. 1 reason for modding in P&E. It’s not just common–it’s constant. And anyone who gets modded for that probably doesn’t like it and, in fact, probably weren’t attempting a hijack in the first place.

So there are quite a lot of people here who find their posting practices frequently being corrected. A majority? I have no idea. But it’s a significant percentage.

35

I agree and find only hijack moderation to be an issue. (I have other issues, but those come down to board culture, which I would not attempt to change.)

36

That’s because it’s the number one rule in the revised rules from 2020.

No one likes being modded for any reason. That’s not a reason for us to not do it.

It’s not a majority. It’s about 35%, according to past discussions. That’s not enough to make a rules change.

37

I think innocent hijacking is different, in that it’s pretty much the only thing modded that doesn’t involve ill intentions (and I think it’s clear that 90%+ of hijacking is not done to cause trouble).

Thus, I think it’s reasonable to propose allowing posters to do a thing that is not bad by nature.

That’s a pretty darn big number, though!

38

I’ve said my piece. I do not support this change.

I’ll leave the discussion now for others to share their views, except to again invite those who may view my approach to moderating hijacks as too strict to please share their opinion and basis for it privately with me. I am more than willing to adjust my approach if I am perceived as the problem here.

39

Thank you. I’ve made my points as well, I think, and will not argue back at this point.

40

This is genuinely silly. Nine posters in ten who say “I don’t know if this is a hijack” are actually saying “I really really want to make this point and I know it’s a hijack but I’m gonna go for it.” Like saying “no offense” before you say something offensive.