Maybe the board should back off on the whole “fighting ignorance” thing, when the inherent bias in the posters is so blindingly obvious.
To use one minor example, 75% of viewers approved of the President’s SOTU address. Based on the comments here, something upwards of 95% of this board’s posters did not. That variance cannot be handwaved away. Bias does not fight ignorance, it perpetuates ignorance.
This thread wasn’t started about the healthcare debate. It was about a poster’s demands to stop hijacking in a totally different thread. And that poster responded after Bone’s note not to rehash the underlying issue.
No, but it can be explained with some basic thought. I’ll wager that 75% of yesterday’s durian fruit eaters approved of the durian fruit they ate, even though a bit fewer than 75% of people as a whole enjoy the experience.
This is, in my experience, a common error you make: you find a very basic fact that, with almost no reflection, manages to support a point you’d like to make, and then you hammer that fucker into the ground.
If, instead, you seemed interested in what other folks had to say, and if you paid attention to their clarifications and corrections, it might lead to more productive conversations.
Or, y’know, you could keep on believing that durian fruit hatred is just bias.
You posts questions whether I would moderate based on my political beliefs. When challenged, suddenly it’s about the boards political leanings. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, but it has nothing to do with my moderating.
In terms of Bone’s instructions you have again changed your tune. You said that someone in this very thread was disobeying a moderator instruction. When called on it, you point to actions in another thread. I continue to see no one in this thread - which you, yourself, specified as containing the violation - who has done so.
This begins to look like you’re attempting to redirect this thread as a means of getting a different answer than you’ve been given. No liking an answer doesn’t make it wrong and sometimes you’re going to have to learn to live with such. I encourage you to do so.
And, in my official capacity, I’ll argue that the opinions of the SOTU address and data regarding it are out of bounds for this thread. Let’s not get - ahem - sidetracked.
What are you on about? Aspenglow? Bone said that this thread is about hijacks; and that’s 100% what Aspenglow posted about. If you meant another poster, vagueposting isn’t your friend.
I think it’s rather obvious that Bone’s note referred to relitigating the underlying issue referred to the healthcare debate, not the issue of hijacking.
Aspenglow’s post referred not to the healthcare issue, but to the subject of hijacking, and so was on point for this thread.
If Aspenglow’s post was in violation of Bone’s note, then your subsequent posts discussing hijacking are also in violation of it.
[ol]
[li]I’m not a moderator of ATMB. From time to time, the entire staff will step out of our lanes when the need arises, but typically we avoid doing so if possible.[/li][li]My post in #28 was not in my capacity as a moderator. I and all the staff will offset those posts with tags, etc. to clearly indicate where we are moderating. Beyond that we’re just regular posters.[/li][li]You’re assessment that #31 was relitigating one of the underlying catalysts for this thread doesn’t seem on point. It was specifically about hijacking - what this thread is about, not the unrelated issues about prescriptions, etc.[/li][/ol]
The primary reason we recommend against making such accusations is that on one end of the spectrum they tend to derail threads - they aren’t productive in discussion so we eschew them, and on the other end of the spectrum they tend to be done in a way that’s violative of other rules against insults. But if a person does merely say that they find something insulting, that’s not necessarily Jr. modding. I think you misunderstand what Jr. Modding is. We didtalk about it last March. Here is what I said at the time:
That sounds right to me.
While we all aspire to be our best selves, I and others are but one person as a whole. We bring the entirety of our person into the role. It would be quite silly to deny that we each have our own experiences we draw from. I’m biased, but I think we’re quite successful in being as objective as possible. I will say that I always appreciate feedback. Evidence based feedback even more so.
Heh. Part of the lore of the message board precedes D’Anconia. There was one guy known as The Poster Who Must Not Be Named, who would derail threads on his pet topic, circumspection. Well, actually it wasn’t circumspection, but for years we would circle around this topic (ha!) in the hopes of dodging his presumably daily google searches. I assumed there were sock issues.
Ok, I’m the OP of the healthcare thread. I am sorry for using the word “hijack” in that thread. But within the first 10 posts (in which I was hoping to get debate/discussion going over the Amazon/Chase/Warren Buffet healthcare announcement), it appeared to me that you were not going anywhere near the topic I was asking about. You seemed to be trying to “get” me somehow, demanding that I “back up” what’s in my insurance policy. Didn’t seem especially on-topic.
Also, you continue to say, even in this thread, that I was unwilling or unable to back up my flu shot claim, yet I did. My original claim was: “I am on a silver plan, which isn’t cheap, and it still took an afternoon of calling pharmacies to find someone that would cover my family’s flu shot. That’s insane. An afternoon calling my insurance company, calling pharmacies, etc. Or I could shell out $130 for my family to get shots.”
I’ve now underlined the part you should pay attention to. You, for whatever reason, decided to tell me that insurers are required to cover flu shots. I never said mine didn’t. In fact, right after you posted your ACA link, I came back into the thread, humored your continued digression, and explained HOW my insurance company COVERED MY FLU SHOT. I then asked you to stop hijacking the thread, but now I realize I was wrong. Instead, to avoid the appearance of junior modding, I should have requested you pretty please try to veer back onto the actual topic I was hoping to have discussed, and not continue to get hung up on my specific insurance coverage or continually ask for me to “back it up.”
But again, I apologize for using the word “hijack.” I honestly didn’t realize it carried with it anything “official.” I was simply trying to steer the thread back on topic, especially since the thread was barely two hours old by the time you were seemingly making attempts to derail it by explaining to me an insurance policy you know nothing about and making demands that I…I’m not sure what. Did you want me to connect you with a representative from my insurance company so he or she could tell you that they only cover certain flu shots but not others? Is that how you wanted me to “back it up?” Sorry, not gonna happen for many reasons, the least of which is that it had nothing to do with the OP I had just posted.
The word itself doesn’t carry anything official with it as long as it’s part of a request and not a demand or an accusation of rule-breaking.
Hijack may be a specific term that moderators enforce rules about but it’s also just common internet slang for a tangential change of subject from the OP. Not all of those are considered rules violations.
Happy, your use of the word ‘hijack’ violates no rules in my book. It was, indeed, a hijack and a request to get the thread back on track isn’t out of order.
But it’s always good to report such if you have real concerns. Let us review things and intervene if we feel it’s necessary.
This reminds me of penalties in an NFL game. Both teams constantly think the other team should be getting them. Thing is, it is the officials who make the calls, and that’s all that matters. The moderators here are the officials here. If they don’t flag something, that’s good enough for me and, if they do, I respect the call. That makes life here simple, at least for me.
Now at the risk of “hijacking” this thread, and I hope I’ll be permitted this slight digression as D’Anconia has directly accused me of a few things upthread: D’Anconia, you accused me of being “uninformed,” “misunderstanding something,” making a claim that I never did, and either being “unwilling or unable to back [my claim] up.” I would love for you to come back and explain *how *I was uninformed, *what *I misunderstood, *where *I said that my insurance company DIDN’T cover flu shots, explain *how *I am unwilling or unable to back up what I said, or explain to me how specifically you would have me “back up” what my insurance policy covers. For shits and giggles, maybe explain how any of that is pertinent to a discussion of the Amazon/Berkshire-Hawthorne/Chase healthcare announcement.
I personally think that is the hijack is mild, I’d rather give a mild and polite request rather than report it. But it the hijack continues or is radical, then hit the report button. Very often, if reminded nicely, most posters will return.