Didn’t we used to have a rule that GQ threads were allowed to drift into non-GQ territory after the factual question was fully answered, or after a dozen-or-so posts, whichever comes first?
It’s not uncommon for GQ threads to drift into GD or IMHO territory after a while, and @Colibri strictly enforces the factual rule (with mod notes, threats of warnings, and actual warnings) no matter how deep into the thread it happens. We see this happening a lot, most currently in the thread about the Sioux tribes objecting to Trump’s visit to Mt. Rushmore.
Can we get an update or clarification on what Colibri thinks the rule is, and how he interprets it?
Once a GQ thread gets fairly deeply in, and starts drifting into IHMO (or other) territory, why not just move it to another forum, instead of squelching the conversation that people are having?
This is not new. We’ve had this question come up before. Last I remember, the clarification was that GQ threads ARE allowed to drift eventually.
I’ve always had a similar feeling about the topics in Great Debates, where people may drop in only to leave irrelevant comments or little jokes. I am not planning to report the posts I refer to because they are easily noticeable especially since there isn’t much activity in that forum/category, and anyone could notice them just by browsing there 5-10 minutes per day. I don’t want to antagonize either forum users or moderators, but the posts in Great Debates should aim at depth and insight in my opinion.
I don’t recall ever hearing such a rule. There is a rule that says you’re allowed to post joke answers, political potshots excepted, but must wait until the question has been answered factually.
It seems to me the threads were OK with going into peripheral topics in GQ - but not to stray too far from the original topic (i.e. don’t have a thread where 3/4 of the posts are not germane to the topic of the post). And also, don’t turn it into a debate. Factual asides, Ok. Clever(!?) jokes about it, OK (after the initial answer). No cheap shots, no politics (likely to provoke fact-free debates), no insults, etc.
I always thought GQ was fairly well run, less of a ramble and not too restrictive…
I would prefer stricter enforcement. If you want to IMHO or GD, start a thread there.
It’s frustrating to try to find an answer to something only to get bombarded by people who absolutely must share showing up and treating it like a poll.
And in the thread in question, the OP was trying to turn the discussion into what the law should be, which is wildly inappropriate for GQ.
Moving a thread is appropriate if the OP is in the wrong place, e.g. asking for opinions, historical what-if questions, what is just and proper, etc.
No, there has never been any such rule, and certainly not in the 13 years I’ve been modding GQ.
I don’t think an “update” or clarification is necessary since the premise of this thread is erroneous. I will generally try to keep threads in General Questions if it is possible. Sometimes the OP itself is on a political question or a matter of opinion, in which case I’ll move it to another forum. I’m more tolerant of jokes or asides than I am of hijacks into Great Debates territory. Also, people may get into an interesting side discussion, which I will often allow unless it becomes contentious.
But it’s always a judgement call. As I said, I will generally try to keep a thread in GQ if possible. However, sometimes I don’t see a hijack into Great Debates territory developing until there are already too many posts to deal with. In such cases I might opt to move the thread rather than handing out notes and warnings right and left.
Cite? Some drift is allowable, but as I said I am less likely to allow a hijack into Great Debates territory than jokes or asides. That was the case that was developing in the Mt. Rushmore/Sioux thread.
Okay, @Colibri’s remarks there are generally consistent with his remarks here, but I didn’t find it totally clear then either, that threads devolving into debates were forbidden once we got many posts down into the thread.
Still, with a lively debate going about Sioux and Rushmore in that thread, and any factual question answered as much as it was going to be, why not just move the thread to IMHO or GD and let it continue?
If the topic interests you, why not start a new thread in Great Debates with a link to the previous thread, as I suggested? Then you can frame the debate yourself.
I agree. Here was the thread title " The Sioux nation has said president Trump does not have permission to visit Mt. Rushmore. Can they do that?" It seems that according to the moderator of the thread, any answer other than “No, they cannot” is a violation of the rules.
Sometimes to answer that question, there are competing value judgments and points of fact. You had (at least) two posters doing just that and were mod noted and told to knock it off. I tried to illustrate the history and say that there really was not a debate there (e.g. that the Sioux for 100 years sued for money, then refused to accept the money) and that gets mod noted and the thread dies.
For what purpose does the thread die and the discussion ends? Do I start a new GD or IMHO thread to say that there is no debate here, when I was answering (I think) the question? Instead of mod noting three times and coming up with an absurd, contradictory and confusing rule like this:
how about just move the thread unless someone comes in with a really over the top political pot shot and frustrates the OP’s attempt to get a question answered?