Cradle Catholic here. I had no confusion over the choices and answered the poll without reading any further. I found the hijack real overkill, given a thread that I assumed was intended to be more light-hearted.
Arguments or cites intended to convince people such as I that we should have been confused don’t really change that.
They are not, but that isnt what the OP was claiming. The Op was asking what sort of marriage - and who officiated. For the purposes of that poll- A man minister, in a traditional religious setting or A woman minister, in a traditional religious setting- A Catholic priest, a Rabbi, or a Protestant Minister- all qualify as “ a traditional religious setting”. Unless somehow you are claiming that a Minister, rabbi, imam or priest- do not qualify as a traditional religious setting.
You know if you had left it as one post instead of TEN, it would likely have not been modded.
Depending on context, you are absolutely right.
But that thread was not the correct context within which to make that distinction. Hopefully by now, and with the explanations here, you see that.
Signs point to “no.”
Pot meet kettle.
FWIW, I’ve owned up to the fact that I helped to hijack the thread, and I regret doing so. AFAICT, you’re still not understanding why we got the mod note in the first place.
Unfortunately, this board only allows a limited number of new threads per day, because otherwise we would be overwhelmed by new content.
Oh, wait, the opposite of that. I almost started a thread about “terms for clergy”, because there’s a lot of room for discussion. (For example, Methodists argue about whether “pastor” or “minister” is better.) But I decided against it because I’m interested in nuance, not argument.
Stepping back, and completely away from the argument of the previous thread, I’m going to ask what is your main complaint @Whack-a-Mole.
Is it that the mods aren’t enforcing/declaring that your POV is the correct one?
Because we almost never do that.
Is it that you weren’t allowed to continue arguing until everyone else agreed or left the thread?
Again, that’s why we moderate on hijacks, and as mentioned above, frequently suggest you open your own thread if you degree with the focus or direction of the thread?
Is it that you were moderated?
If so, I’ll remind that you were given a modnote, not a Warning. I respect @puzzlegal’s keeping it all even. What she did was take the OP’s clarification, made it explicit to the thread (most of which were fine anyway) and to ask you and and @kenobi_65 to drop it. You weren’t kicked out of the thread, or warned. I mean, that’s the idea behind a mod note and moderation in general. I know that when I see a thread drifting AND the OP isn’t clear, I often ask for input from the OP prior to making changes, though I always state we’re not bound by their suggestions. But if it’s reasonable, I do normally try to keep to the spirit of the OP. As you yourself said:
Or, and I’m weak to this concern myself, so you’re far from alone - are you upset that your POV/Definitions were more correct but it wasn’t acknowledged?
That’s a common complaint, one that I sometimes seethe about. If that’s a part (large or small), then I’ll freely acknowledge that your distinction is valid, and worthy of a detailed discussion. But despite that, the distinction wasn’t what the thread was about.
So please feel free to create that new thread, I’m sure there are many posters who haven’t researched the different roles of the religious leaders of the many Christian sects. Or other major religious sects. It’s worthy of discussion and you can craft the OP until it’s a nigh-perfect vehicle for discussion.
IIRC we are not to question mods in their offical capacity in the thread where they post as we might with any other poster.
It is my understanding that this is the place for it. Where else should I disagree with them if I want to? I think I am a looooong way from complaining about every mod note/warning but I have not really kept track.
This is the place to argue that you should have been allowed to continue hijacking the thread. It is not the place to argue that minister is a specific term that doesn’t include priests.
Which of those do you want to argue?
How do you do one without referencing the other? How do you make your case about the mod note if you can’t mention what it was about?
The modnote was about your hijack. You are free to mention that.
Kinda the point of contention. Again, not sure where else to discuss moderation no matter how wrong I might be.
I’m sorry, I still don’t understand what your point of contention is. But if you haven’t understood the explanations from five mods and several other posters, you’re not going to understand it from me.
If what you are trying to understand is “why was I given a mod note?”, ATMB is the place. However, as has already been mentioned by several moderators, the note was for hijacking that thread, and you’ve already gotten a number of replies – both from moderators and from other posters – that your (and my, I acknowledge) repeated posts in that thread constituted a hijack.
Is that what you are trying to dispute?
That’s true. What I was trying to dig into, was what is your reason or motivations, or rather, why was it so important to you to keep hammering away at the hijack, and then to disagree after the moderation.
Basically, I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
I know other posters sometimes find themselves hijacking or even threadshitting because they consider their POV to be the only correct one, and that the OP is intrinsically wrong in it’s reasoning. We moderate those quite strongly (within the individual rules of the forum of course).
Other posters have very specific individual beliefs that they promote in any tangentially related thread, because the issue is just that important to them.
So far, what I understand is you disagree that it shouldn’t have been considered a hijack. Fair enough, though most of the posters in this thread, including 5 moderators feel otherwise. No, the majority isn’t always right, but it argues for some self-reflection. It’s a tired trope, but while we’re trying to put ourselves in your shoes, you should consider the perspective of the OP who created the thread and the specifics they wanted to discuss.
Getting a mod note is being officially moderated.
You were being a massive jerk and ruining the thread.
Who are you people? This is what you consider being a “massive jerk?” I “ruined” the thread (which has continued on just fine despite my “ruining” it).
Ok…you do you. Maybe not my best moment but I very much disagree.
I said “were ruining”. It got better once the hijack was stopped. As for the first question. I can’t make any sense out of that incoherence.