# Can we have a new rule in GD **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 28, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933 "2015-10-28T03:59:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/21 "2015-10-28T09:43:32Z")
Threadshitting or thread hijacking. Could be the latter, too, but we already have a rule for that. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/22 "2015-10-28T12:40:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Threadshitting or thread hijacking. Could be the latter, too, but we already have a rule for that. Exactly - so, report the post that you feel is doing either and let the mods handle it. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/23 "2015-10-28T12:44:06Z")
Always a good policy. But I’ll share it around the loop and see what people say. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/24 "2015-10-28T13:27:10Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Atheists are welcome to share their views … in their own threads. Apart from non-believers specifically being invited to participate by the OP in the thread in question, creating a sweeping rule that prevents skeptics (on any topic) from participating in a thread strikes me as a very bad idea. What would happen if someone started a thread to discuss which of the 9/11 conspiracies made the most sense, and explicitly stated that posts debunking the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy were not welcome? How about threads in which the OP asked about people’s experiences with alternative cancer cures, but welcomed only “supportive” posts and not ones which highlighted the dangers of such remedies? It seems to me that current board policy is amply sufficient to cover instances where posters have nothing to contribute besides mockery (which understandably is a major irritant to the devout). ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/25 "2015-10-28T13:39:54Z")
Yeah, a couple posters (possibly atheists, possibly not) started a drift or two. Some posters followed the drifts and a couple folks basically ignored the drifts and came back to the OP point of “I’ve long wondered about some of the aspects of the Christian belief in heaven.” It doesn’t strike me as odd for GD threads. If its religion, politics or whatever its hard to have an honest debate in a vacuum. Some side/related issues have almost got to come in at some point. And you do/did have a Mod following and participating in the discussion. Hitting “report post” on a couple of the posts would make sense; trying to develop some new rule doesn’t seem to make as much sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/26 "2015-10-28T13:45:13Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > What would happen if someone started a thread to discuss which of the 9/11 conspiracies made the most sense, and explicitly stated that posts debunking the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy were not welcome? Seriously? You’re comparing Christianity to 9/11 conspiracy? Seriously? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/27 "2015-10-28T13:54:20Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Seriously? You’re comparing Christianity to 9/11 conspiracy? Seriously? :eek: That’s not even remotely the case. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/28 "2015-10-28T14:05:17Z")
I’m with the OP on not allowing one disrupting the thread when it was supposed to about the OP’s thread title on the nature of heaven, and as others have pointed out, we already have rules in place for that. And **tomndebb** was there from page one participating, but it was still on the rails then. He did come back briefly, but in fairness that damn thing seemed to go several pages in just a short time, so unless someone reported it, he may not have realized how far it went off the tracks. And most expect little tangents on any thread, no problem there either. In this particular thread, all were invited, not just Christians, and surely one shouldn’t expect an atheist to think heaven is real. We’ve also already got witnessing allowed in GD, see Snark Hunter’s OP about **Body Signals and the Fall of Radical Islam.** Now you want to forbid atheists entirely when talking about just the nature of heaven, or anything Christian or some other faith based religion unless atheists have their own specific thread? Come up with better arguments, and maybe they would go away or get converted. If you want a faith based thread of like-minded individuals, and no atheists allowed on heaven or other religious issues, I suspect they could maybe request that in IMHO or some other area asking for only feedback from the faithful, but I doubt that request would be honored in GD. And it wouldn’t surprise me that debate would erupt there too among just the faithful, so it’s liable to head back to GD, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/29 "2015-10-28T14:32:30Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Seriously? You’re comparing Christianity to 9/11 conspiracy? Seriously? :eek: Ok, lets try it another way. If I started a thread on “what is a unicorns favorite food,” don’t you think it would be appropriate for someone to point out unicorns are not real? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/30 "2015-10-28T14:36:12Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Ok, lets try it another way. If I started a thread on “what is a unicorns favorite food,” don’t you think it would be appropriate for someone to point out unicorns are not real? Are you comparing unicorns to 9/11? :eek: 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/31 "2015-10-28T14:42:39Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Ok, lets try it another way. If I started a thread on “what is a unicorns favorite food,” don’t you think it would be appropriate for someone to point out unicorns are not real? I have not read the thread in question so I don’t know exactly what the nature of the threadshitting (or not) was. But that could be an interesting topic. There’s a lot of literature about unicorns out there, and I imagine that if the conversation gained traction it would focus on discussing information from extant texts about unicorns, right? Even if the OP sincerely believes in the existence of unicorns, that doesn’t prevent the conversation from happening. In that circumstance, yes, it would be pretty lame to take a big dump on the conversation by reminding everyone that unicorns aren’t real. It doesn’t contribute to the conversation in any way except to possibly derail it. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/32 "2015-10-28T14:58:13Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > I have not read the thread in question so I don’t know exactly what the nature of the threadshitting (or not) was. > > But that could be an interesting topic. There’s a lot of literature about unicorns out there, and I imagine that if the conversation gained traction it would focus on discussing information from extant texts about unicorns, right? Even if the OP sincerely believes in the existence of unicorns, that doesn’t prevent the conversation from happening. > > In that circumstance, yes, it would be pretty lame to take a big dump on the conversation by reminding everyone that unicorns aren’t real. It doesn’t contribute to the conversation in any way except to possibly derail it. Fair enough. I hope I’m not one of those people who do that, but im sure I’ve Been guilty of something similar over the years. It’s a little maddening to read people discussing imaginary things as if they’re real. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/33 "2015-10-28T15:04:16Z")
It doesn’t help the hijack situation that even after **Robert163** conceded that he may have gone overboard and would take people’s words under advisement(which would have been a great time to get the thread back on track), **tomndebb** [just couldn’t let it go](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18811153&postcount=220), and kept the hijack alive just to get the last word in. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/34 "2015-10-28T15:04:51Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > What would happen if someone started a thread to discuss which of the 9/11 conspiracies made the most sense, and explicitly stated that posts debunking the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy were not welcome? How about threads in which the OP asked about people’s experiences with alternative cancer cures, but welcomed only “supportive” posts and not ones which highlighted the dangers of such remedies? It’s more like someone starting a thread asking for opinions about the administration’s Afghanistan policy, and someone else coming in and insisting over and over that the Democratic party is corrupt, incompetent, and doomed to lose in 2016. That other person doesn’t think a discussion can be had, because he challenges the fundamental premise, and he’s prepared to shout down anyone who does want a discussion. It’s not that the opinion is unwelcome, it’s the insistence on derailing the actual topic from ever arising. I do think this sort of thing falls within the threads–tting rule if it gets bad enough. We see it enforced in Café Society, when someone drops in to a thread to announce that he thinks that a discussion is stupid because the art form under discussion is stupid. Hence I’m also not sure that a new rule is needed, if the mods believe that a similar approach is appropriate for GD. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/35 "2015-10-28T15:54:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It doesn’t help the hijack situation that even after **Robert163** conceded that he may have gone overboard and would take people’s words under advisement(which would have been a great time to get the thread back on track), **tomndebb** [just couldn’t let it go](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18811153&postcount=220), and kept the hijack alive just to get the last word in. Not really. I did not even read the middle portions of the thread and no one reported the hijack. I presumed that the thread had drifted off in the way that so many threads do. Had anyone reported the hijack, earlier, I would have responded differently at that time. And the “take people’s words under advisement” comment was in reference to a different (if related) sub-discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/36 "2015-10-28T16:04:02Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Seriously? You’re comparing Christianity to 9/11 conspiracy? Seriously? :eek: Are you now specifying that your proposed “new rule” (which allegedly is needed to accompany or supplant current board strictures against Being A Jerk or threadshitting) would apply only to threads relating to Christianity? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/37 "2015-10-28T16:17:48Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Are you now specifying that your proposed “new rule” (which allegedly is needed to accompany or supplant current board strictures against Being A Jerk or threadshitting) would apply only to threads relating to Christianity? In this case I think it would just apply to **Robert163** because as **tomndebb** said: > [@A few questions about the Christian heaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-christian-heaven/735643/220): > > The notion of some not-very-well-read internet poster dictating to several billion people the ways in which they are to regard their holy books, (in which said poster does not believe), is risible. Your insistence in dragging your error into one thread after another to declare a point that fails on the evidence is merely silly. It sounds like Robert163 has an agenda to derail Christian threads. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/38 "2015-10-28T16:42:20Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Ok, lets try it another way. If I started a thread on “what is a unicorns favorite food,” don’t you think it would be appropriate for someone to point out unicorns are not real? In GQ, that would be fine. In CS it would be threadshitting. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/39 "2015-10-28T16:44:10Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Are you now specifying that your proposed “new rule” (which allegedly is needed to accompany or supplant current board strictures against Being A Jerk or threadshitting) would apply only to threads relating to Christianity? No, it would also apply to discussions about Islam or Buddhism. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933/40 "2015-10-28T18:33:36Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > No, it would also apply to discussions about Islam or Buddhism. How about Scientology? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-new-rule-in-gd/735933.md?page=3)