I like those types of threads. Ignoring, for a moment, rules that would disallow this, I think hijacks should be allowed in that type of thread. Due to the nature of it being about a court case, information is going to come in waves. We’ll see a flurry of (related) activity for a few days, then nothing for a while, and the cycle keeps repeating. Letting people have side discussions during the down time, IMO, helps to keep the momentum up. I find those threads more enjoyable than some of the other long running threads that can go a week or two between posts.
I understand it would be difficult to moderate the hijacks.
The issue I see with someone starting the thread in when of the other forums that might take a more lenient approach when it comes to hijacks is that there’s a good chance it’ll just get moved back to P&E and P&E rules will apply.
We’ve seen that happen in the past when people ask for their thread to remain in one forum, but it gets moved and becomes harder for them to get an answer. I’ve seen this happen with questions that, while strictly factual in nature, happen to be about sports so it’s off to the game room. It also happens when someone attempts to start a civil discussion about a controversial topic and it gets moved to the pit.
Could we come up with a way where someone can start a thread in the ‘wrong’ forum based on subject matter, but correct forum based on the type of thread and allow it to stay there and be modded as such?
A parallel hijackable thread could run. It was have to be clear from the start what it was. Probably in IMHO or the Pit. It would have say “parallel hijackable thread”* right in the Title or I could add a new tag if this got popular.
The OP should linkback to the main thread.
We really don’t want omnibus threads in P&E or GD also. Apparently these caused problems in the past and I recall at least one in recent years we allowed for a while and it got ugly. Overall we usually moderate or close these.
* Or something else very obvious. I’m no wordsmith.
Even though I’ve been noted and even once warned for hijacking P&E, I don’t like the hijacks. (I’ve never done it intentionally either, it can be hard sometimes to tell what’s a hijack and what’s a humorous take on a relevant topic, I think both posters and mods get that wrong on occasion.) I don’t think it’s essential to keep momentum going. If a topic is quiet, let it fall a bit. It will show back up when something new happens.
I agree with those who get annoyed if an important topic suddenly has a lot of posts in a short time, and you get excited to see what the new development is, and it’s nothing. It’s just people babbling about something irrelevant. I agree with moderation to curb that too. I just disagree on the details at times, especially this last time.
I would argue that every set of rules would benefit from its own forum, regardless of the absolute numbers.
(that would mean the end of P&E and QZ, and a new “retweeting the news” forum)
Now the rules of P&E are a little weird, an ongoing “Trumps Trials and Tribulations” thread with a myriad of hijacks (which wouldn’t be funny elsewhere) is moderated as a breaking news thread, even when there hasn’t been all that much news – any news reported there is (almost by definition) a hijack, the jokes about the tangental news are almost more on topic than the news reports posted.
Alas, those of us who killed our Twitter accounts have found we can no longer follow a link to read a tweet. Instead, we get sign-up links. Links to tweets are going to need summaries.
You can X right out if those sign-up links. You might need to press Register to get to the close-able window, but you can definitely read and navigate Twitter without an account.
You must have missed this when I posted it yesterday:
These are the rules. Please make off-topic jokes in forums that permit them. Jokes that are on topic are permitted, but those are few and far between in the thread about which you’re complaining.
Exactly. I opened the Trump thread right away because I saw that there had been a dozen posts within a few minutes, and I thought something major had happened with respect to the court case.
A joke or two is fine. Lightens the day. Allowing the thread to be a series of Trump insults that add nothing other than the insult is where it gets eye rolling.
I do not see how there is a clear difference. The Coke joke was about something Trump said that was linked in the thread. That seems on-topic to me.
I can see modding the hijack, because the subsequent posts went afield. But you said you were going to start Warning people, rather than the usual way you deal with hijacks (which is just to note them and recommend they be taken elsewhere).
So it seems like the only way to avoid punishment is to avoid jokes altogether.
But every comment by Trump is not germane to the subject of the thread. Trump says inane stuff all the time. Him ordering cokes is not part of the process of his prosecution and/or defense to the charges mounted in the Mar-A-Lago documents case.
Posters who engage in serial hijacks and who have been regularly mod-noted for them will receive warnings because at that point, the poster is deliberately ignoring moderator instructions. We warn for that all the time.
ETA: I’m going to also point out that I moderate very few threads for hijacking except threads that have a narrow focus. If you review threads in P&E and/or GD, you’ll find that probably fewer than half a dozen are moderated regularly for hijacking.
I moderate within the intended scope of a thread. If the subject is broad (but not an omnibus, which we don’t allow), I’m fine with that. But where the scope is narrow, it’s different. The rules require that we stop hijacking, and I’m going to continue to do that until or unless the rules change.
Every time the subject of moderation comes up, I say this, so I guess I’ll say it again: one of the things (maybe the most important thing next to the high level of intelligence of the community at large) that makes this board such a great place to hang out is the diligent and sensible moderation.
I’ve been on boards where moderation was scant and/or haphazard and the whole thing just deteriorated into a shitshow. On one there was virtually no moderation at all-- when I asked about this, people replied that the mods “didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.” Well, as we’ve seen, sometimes you have to draw a line. And yeah, people get pissed. And there can be a civil discussion. And participants on either side can change their minds. Or not. All good.
The mods don’t get paid-- at least I think they don’t. (Maybe a frozen turkey at Thanksgiving? That’s what our annual “bonus” used to be at one place I worked.) That’s not a reason to refrain from challenging a mod, but it is something to keep in mind before handing out a boatload of grief or taking some ruling personally.
A turkey at Thanksgiving, with one of Slug’s drawings of Cecil as a turkey with a mortarboard on the wrapping, would be an appropriate recognition for the mods.
Well, as we’ve seen, sometimes you have to draw a line. And yeah, people get pissed. And there can be a civil discussion. And participants on either side can change their minds. Or not. All good.