In this thread a post asked how many purposes there were for owning a gun.
My answer was hidden as “off-topic” despite the fact I was just answering the question. I described how one might have reasons for more than one gun in each of the given three categories.
HOW was that off-topic? “Too long?” Is this Twitter with a character length now? When did we impose length-limits on posts? If we have, what are they? Please tell me because really do not like having my posts dumped out of the conversation and I’ll play by new rules if you tell me they exist.
I honestly do not see or understand how my post was “off topic” or “too long”. Please explain so I can understand.
I allowed a few posts veering into the shoulder, your post was going off-road and would hijack the thread. That is my answer.
It was a poll about if and why we need a gun, not why others do and definitely not about judging those who do. Definitely off topic.
I did read your response, Broomstick, and found it interesting, but I could see the moderators’ point here. It’s more a judgement on me than on you. I have this issue a lot with my posts: I find the moderators have a much narrower tolerance for conversational eddies and tributaries than my brain does. I don’t mind a little moderation in this regard, and I presume somebody would say if it were a major problem.
I think the mods have less tolerance for “conversational eddies and tributaries” than they used to do. Some of my favorite threads were due to what would now be considered hijacks and get a thread locked.
I get that, and I try to respect that. The board changes over time and I’ve been here 22 years. I’ll try to keep up.
I still don’t get where it was off topic but if others also think so, too I will respect that. I do think that @hajario’s response was a good one because it gives a reason why he agreed with the moderation, even if I disagree that my post was off-topic. I can see his reasoning there. And @Dr.Drake’s.
I think What_Exit’s post is more along the lines of “I said so”, which, as a mod he can do, but I’d prefer to understand why a decision is made because that helps me avoid stepping on toes in the future.
If anyone else wants to weigh in have at it, I’ll keep the feedback in mind in the future.
Yours was one that I felt was going into the shoulder but I could let pass if it didn’t cause a large drift or hijack.
BTW: @Broomstick, there is an options to reply to a post and start a new thread in doing so. It isn’t obvious, so I’ll try to cover the steps here.
Click Reply
Click the Curved arrow symbol in the upper left corner of the reply window and choose + Reply as a linked topic
This is the recommendation for when your reply is going to go off-topic for a thread.
OK, I’ll try to go a little deeper. I often make the mistake in being too brief and blunt.
Dr.Drake’s post and silenus’s reply were quick and brief and didn’t appear to be taking over the thread, so though they weren’t really on topic and mildly threatening a hijack it seemed a small risk.
Your post was detailed with a lot of points that almost surely would cause a hijack. All gun threads are high risk for hijack and strong acrimony. I’ve been keeping an eye on the thread for a gun debate to break out. Thus far it hadn’t. I really feel your post would have lit that fuel.
I hope that clarifies my thought process. Keep in mind, this wasn’t even a modnote. This was just an attempt to keep the thread from becoming yet another gun debate.
That “reply as a linked topic” is very interesting, I did not know that. Don’t you fear it might lead to a disorderly proliferation of topics? Hijack here vs too many very narrow single issue topics there? Or to put it another way with a concrete example: should I have used that feature when I asked about the weight and the price of 50K rounds of ammo in the same thread?
I think you’re good there. Two things to think about with a reply are
- Is this on-topic
- Is this likely to cause a big hijack
Yours was probably borderline on #1 and the answer is NO to #2
Yes it does. Thank you.
I understand, but all other things being equal I’d prefer to avoid those even if they aren’t that big a deal.
I didn’t know about it either, it may not be a well known feature. I’ll keep it in mind for those situations where I know I’m about to go off topic (when I don’t know, well, I’ll deal with it when brought to my attention).
I did enjoy the 'Dope more when it was conversational than the way it is now moderated.
Conversely, I enjoy it more now that it is moderated the way it is.
For one thing, the blessed silence of all those missing racists and other bigots from GD/FQ is very soothing. Wouldn’t have happened with the more lax moderation of the tomndebb era.
It’s not as if when you allow mild conversational wanderings you must also tolerate hate speech.
mmm
I prefer the new approach, independent of the progress made on reducing hate speech.
Mild conversational wanderings are still allowed and happen all the time in many threads where it’s appropriate. In the particular case that prompted this thread, Broomstick made an informative but off-topic post. By itself, it was probably fine. But in the old days, that “conversational wandering” would have prompted multiple replies about why those uses of guns are evil, and responses to that about why guns are necessary, and it’s well off-track before a mod could have reigned it in. By that time, I and many others have given up on the thread.
I’m happy the mods proactively look for those potential issues before the thread is derailed. For every poster who finds a particular tangent interesting, there are usually several more who find it annoying.
I’m not saying they were banned for hate speech. It’s just that hijacking conversations with trolly shit-bombs, not necessarily related to their main malfunction, just happened to be a favourite tactic of most of the posters who were also some of the more out racists and transphobes. Pure co-incidence, I’m sure.
Keeping that kind of thing from happening limits the tools in the trolls’ arsenal. If it occasionally snares a non-trollish poser, like it did the OP and like it has to me too on occasion, that’s a side-effect we all should just live with. Benefits vastly outweigh the cost.
I don’t know, Broomstick. When I went through my moderator training back in the dark ages (you remember — you were there), one of the toughest things was getting used to the differences between forums. In the beginning, I moderated the Game Room, which was about as loose as things got, and GQ, which was pretty tight.
I’ve only been back a short while, but the moderation doesn’t look that different to me. Each moderator still has a distinct personality, but I don’t see a massive discontinuity from the old days.
I think tomndebb issued some of the most entertaining warnings and mod notes in the history of the SDMB. He was pretty mellow until you crossed the line, and then it got real. I enjoyed working with him.
tomndebb explicitly refused to moderate hate speech. His moderation is not missed by me.