In P&E, a poster wrote an OP that sure impresses me as an attempt to troll. When numerous people responded/engaged respectfully, the OP never returned. When I and another poster questioned the OP’s behavior that, we were told our remarks are improper.
Don’t at least the more serious forums - GD, P&E - expect an OP to be written with the expectation that the OPer desires and intends to participate in a discussion?
I’ve been told in the past that OPs of mine have been “too ranty.” In a similar vein, why shouldn’t a mod observe that an OP such as this does not seem intended to engage in an exchange of views, a determination seemingly supported by the OP’s lack of follow-up? What would be wrong with closing the thread, and welcoming the OP to repost it if they wish to engage in the discussion?
Would this thread have been closed or the OPer notified if I had flagged the thread? I wouldn’t think that necessary, since a mod was clearly aware of the thread.
It was a fairly simple P&E question. It was not ranty at all though.
While I too question the intent of the OP, I don’t know the intent and am treating it as a serious question.
Not even a note was handed out. So there is nothing going on here of note I would say.
We don’t require participation, but I will admit it is greatly preferred at least by me. Too many threads like that would start drawing notes or more. It happened to at least one poster. They did change their ways.
So to answer your last question, flagging it would not have changed anything in this case. I had already decided the thread passed muster.
For what it is worth, we’re also a bit looser for P&E than GD.
I hope this all helps.
BTW: I appreciate you not linking to the OP. That may have been problematic, so good call.
Have to admit that was inadvertent! When I clicked on the address at top, I have no idea why it linked to that response. Why would that have been problematic?
ISTM that you do judge intent when you declare OPs “ranty.” I’d say it is a darned safe bet that the OP was unconcerned about “not being a jerk.” And it does not seem infrequent to see threads closed by a mod simply observing, “Nothing more to see here.”
Kind of an odd standard to say that the fact that a note was not handed out establishes that a note oughtn’t have been handed out.
You know I defer to you mods’ decisions, even when I disagree with them. Just impressed me that this was pretty jerks action by the OP, of a type that is discouraged around here.
FWIW, there was a discussion in the Pit and multiple people called it troll-ish but it wasn’t even enough for the Pit mudslingers (I’m one I admit) to label it blatant.
It would have pretty much been calling the OP out for trolling. This isn’t allowed outside the pit. That is why I thought you did it on purpose.
Generally, but at the time I reviewed, the poster does not generally cause problems. So I saw no ill intent. I also had no clue they would be abandoning the thread. So while hard to understand how they needed to ask the question, I’m going to go with, Honest question asked by someone with different news sources than I use.
It will probably die down on its own. We generally avoid closing fresh threads because “question answered”. I think that may have happened long ago, but I don’t recall it happening anytime vaguely recently.
Believe it or not, that thread has not been a problem to moderate, so really no reason to close it.
Determining if a thread is too “ranty” has nothing to do with intent, though - it’s purely about how the text reads, and not about what the OP intended. If it were based on intent, “I didn’t intend it to be a rant,” would be a useful defense against moderating such threads.
We don’t generally require that OPs return to threads they start, although it’s preferred, and a pattern of starting threads and never responding to them is one of the things we take into account when determining if someone is a troll or not, but it’s not sufficient evidence by itself.
Funny - I woulda thought that a more sincere question than the OP. And asking for an explanation of the mod decision that this was NOT trolling does not seem the same as accusing someone of trolling.
And I looked (briefly) in the Pit but did not see a clear thread. I’m likely hyped up over the antagonistic local elections yesterday, and likely hypersensitive to what I perceive as disingenuous crap from the right. So tired of unpleasant unreasonable people trying to sow unpleasantness.
Yeah - I’ve expressed disagreements with this in the past, largely due to what I perceive as inconsistent application. But - as I’ve generally (always?) said, you mods have a tough job and generally do it well - for which I am thankful.
Thanks for the explanations. Gotta go count the angels on the head of this pin here…
This kind of thread is basically the equivalent of ringing the doorbell and running away. Sure it doesn’t use the worst kind of in incindiary language but it is still of the same class of posting. I can’t imagine how it’s not trolling.
If the Mods were dumb enough to give warnings to posters that tossed minor insults at him in the thread, then it would be trolling. We just gave modnotes and nudges. Instead, it is a provocative thread but many posters enjoyed expressing their opinions on Trump in the thread.
I would like to think we the Mods are smart enough to not let a thread like that generate warnings. We’ve all been around for a fairly long time and have seen plenty of real trolling.
My view is that someone who habitually drops a stinker and then ghosts the thread shouldn’t be allowed to start threads at all, regardless of how other participants behave in the thread.
Sure, there should be incremental discipline, such as an escalating series of warnings that if you’re going to start controversy, then you should have some kind of obligation to respond to those who have addressed the issue in good faith and are doing so at least in part to have a conversation with the OP.
This is basically bad faith posting and it should have consequences. It’s bad faith and jerkish, which is anathema to our Prime Directive.
To me, policing this sort of thing is much, much more important to board culture than policing topic drift, something that’s gotten waaaaay too strict in recent times.
How meta. Hijacking the trolling thread to talk about hijacking.
It may not bother some, but it bothers the people who flag it regularly. When they do, you need to let me know how we’re supposed to get around this rule change, made in 2020:
It’s a delicate balance to decide when some hijacking becomes too much hijacking. I think we’re all open to suggestions on the subject.
If you feel the rule should be modified, please let us know that, along with your specific suggestions on how we might be guided. Preferably in a thread dedicated to that discussion.
We could rescind the rule. Or modify it. One of the advantages of this site is that rule changes can be unilaterally imposed from above and we don’t have to hold a vote.
ETA: If we want to keep the hijack rule, (which is fine) we could add a rule sanctioning starting a thread with a ridiculous premise and then disappearing. Or clarify that it violates the “don’t be a jerk” principle.
Sure, we can. But my understanding is that the rules of 2020 were imposed after a lengthy discussion about it, and we’re still interested in doing what the majority of posters want to do on the site. I don’t think we’re going to change a rule we so recently settled on, unless there is significant number of posters who say they want this change.
Which thing do you wish to discuss? I came to address the hijacking complaints in this thread. I believe the issue regarding why the starting a thread and disappearing was already adequately explained by both @What_Exit and @Miller earlier in the thread.
It is fine of course, and I’ll leave those two and others to carry on that discussion with you if they feel a need to do that. I’m in agreement with all they said.
If you want to continue the discussion re modifying the hijacking rules, I’m happy to continue that conversation in an ATMB thread dedicated to it.
We all have our own pet peeves I guess. If someone dropped a thread about “what is really so bad about declawing cats?” and then never appeared again, I guess we could all just say it was a legitimate question and leave it at that.
I get that and it peeves me, too, but it’s not the same as finding a violation in our rules such to sanction someone for not returning to a thread. We have never had such a requirement. There are circumstances when we would do it, as outlined by Miller earlier.
When I clicked on the address at top, I have no idea why it linked to that response. Why would that have been problematic?
Hijacking the trolling thread to talk about hijacking.