I Don't Understand Some Mod Interventions

I have to say that I’m with those who disagree with this instance of moderator intervention. Yes, it was just a note, and no the sky isn’t falling, but it would be unfortunate if this was indicative of the direction we’re heading in moderation policy. No, this isn’t a court, as was noted above, but it also isn’t an encylopedia, where rigorous demarcation and categorization of topics is essential to maintaining its utility. This is an organized chat board, where we try to put threads in the appropriate forums and try to keep them reasonably on track, especially in contentious argumentative threads where, as noted in the quoted rule, all kinds of disingenuous attempts might be made intended only to derail the discussion.

But there is also such a thing as overly strict application of the rules that prevents a discussion from evolving organically in a way that continues to be relevant and helps to advance and illuminate the conversation. This is supposed to be a welcoming place for all manner of civil discussion, reasonably organized and reasonably moderated, not a stringently categorized collecton of encyclopedic knowledge nor, in general, a place of draconian rules enforcement.

The real purpose of the “hijack” rule as I see it is to keep threads from being genuinely derailed either by people clearly being jerks or by people clearly being ignorant. The post by UltraVires in my view was nowhere near that kind of threshold, and on the contrary raised quite a relevant point.

This isn’t 1 or 2 people complaining, so I’ll relent. @UltraVires, you may bring other wars into this debate. I’ll remove my note from the thread.

The sky is falling!
.
.
.
.
.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Really might be a first.

I tried typing those words like 200 times before they came out right.