He did not use the word threadshitters in the GD thread. I am the one who has used that term in this one.
@lissener simply said that he was not responding to people trying to hijack the thread.
I take it that you have not actually read the thread in question?
Read it? Yes.
Memorized it? No.
You don’t have to memorize a thread in order to not make an incorrect assertion as to what someone else has said.
It is true. Any time a gun control thread comes around, the same tired disingenuous arguments come out. That it is this, that it is that, that it is anything and everything but the guns, and so we shouldn’t talk about the guns.
It’s tiresome and frustrating, and entirely prevents any sort of interesting or productive discussion. That the OP asked that this thread not go down the same route that they are inevitably dragged down should not be grounds for closing it.
If the pro gun advocate want to have a thread on how to lower gun violence while not changing any accessibility to guns, then they are welcome to do so. If DrDeth started a topic, “How do we reduce gun violence without any form of gun control”, then bringing up gun control would be a hijack. But, when asking what kind of gun control would be effective, bringing up mental health and claiming that no gun control could have an impact on gun violence isn’t. That doesn’t make any sense to me.
They can have a thread, and it may be an interesting and productive thread, on how mental health, ending the war on drugs, alleviating poverty, or any manner of social changes could lower gun violence. But they don’t. They’d rather have that discussion when others are talking about how to implement effective gun control. Why is that? They only seem interested in talking about these subject when someone else is trying to talk about gun control.
While your confusion is understandable, the thought occurs that while you aren’t obligated to reply to such an individual, you aren’t even obligated to notify him (or her, it could be a her) of your intention.
And why that’s allowed but you dare not question if something actually is positive gun news boggles the mind…
I have only seen those alternative solutions pop up when when the topic is gun control/regulations.
Personally, I think the thread was poisoned from the OP - in that it wasn’t a debate. It wasn’t even FRAMED as a debate. I suggest everyone re-read the OP - it was a statement of how/why the 2nd amendment is flawed, in terms of both the technical definitions and the human factor. If I’d been reading it in MPSIMS I’d of probably read it and felt ‘glad you got it off your chest.’ For that matter, the exact final line (before the footnotes) is
So I’ll stop here, and add any other thoughts I may have in the ensuing thread. If such a thing ensues.
So nope, not a debate, and not a word about ‘bad faith arguments.’ This is all ‘requirements’ you added later. So the debate begins, and was one without framing, so your later amendments to what you wanted (oh, btw - you chose not to define what you considered ‘tired arguments’ even in the thread at all).
Lastly, I direct you to one of what I feel is key rules for Great debates -
You are here to discuss the issues. If instead your goal appears to be to ‘bring liberal tears’ or ‘bash fascist conservatives’ you may be sanctioned by the moderation staff.
The OP was edging towards this in it’s discussion of the NRA and those who support them. No, nothing that is a bright line, but it felt you were starting from a fixed POV while asking for a debate, but refusing arguments based on unspoken, unposted guidelines. That was the first mod-note to you, and at the time, you didn’t come here to refute it - you ignored it. And so the mod took the steps they mentioned as a solution. Seems equitable.
I am sorry, are you calling me the hijacker? In your thread, you called out Oredigger77 not me. Nor were my posts in any way a hijack. I actually proposed a workable gun control solution. Oredigger77 was modded once for “not really appropriate. No warning though.”
And yes, I was modded twice (not three times) for the same thing- I cut and pasted a item people thought then was out of context. Both were notes. I did apologize, I misunderstood what point was being made. But by that time, you has stopped posting in your thread.
So are you confusing me and Oredigger77 ?
I am as confused by this post as i was about your OP.
Ok, you say Threadshit, I say Hijack. We disagree. That is simply opinion.
Do you think the Mods read every post in every thread? Unless a post is reported, they rarely do.
And I see no “new rule”. Threadshits usually mean a warning, sometimes a Note. Hijacks are either ignored or Noted, depending. Sometimes a thread goes in a new direction. The Op has little control over that. That has always been the case. No new rules here.
Gun control doesnt have to be about banning guns. I have advocated for background checks on private sales, and much stricter checks on Straw man sales. ie, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, not law abiding citizens.
Joe Biden, the President has made background checks part of his Gun Control platform, so if you dont think more and better background checks are gun control, the Prez disagrees.
I am also argued in favor of Red Flag laws, as long as they meet the ACLU recommended standards for Due Process.
All three of those things are considered “effective gun control” by the President.
Nor did I bring up mental health in that thread or the War on Drugs except concurring with another poster.
So, maybe you should read the thread again, before you think only the same tired disingenuous arguments are the primary focus. And “not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.” I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Really? You posted in that thread, and must have read solutions such as Better background checks, stopping Straw sales, Red flag laws,safety classes for new gun buyers, trigger locks etc.
To be honest I agree with you here, except that I cant say with any certainly exactly what the OP was getting at or wanted. It was a long, rambling diatribe, with little guidance as to what sort of debate he wanted.
I’ve recently seen a couple posters mention that they have other doors on “ignore.” Is that no longer verboten?
I’ve been told that ‘telling’ someone you’re putting them on ignore in a thread is not allowed outside of the pit. I haven’t seen anything about mentioning you have x poster on ignore in other forums, but I don’t have a specific answer, but I’d probably avoid it to be safe.
Not Modding: I just got back from the Dentist, I not up to this tonight and also won’t be doing any modding tonight.
Talking about the ignore list is only allowed in The Pit.
Sorry if I’m not covering everything. Someone else may come along. Good night all.
Put your feet up. Eat something soothing. You’ve earned it.
Of course it doesn’t. Who said it does?
In this context it implies that I said this, which is utterly untrue.
Seriously, if it was not me, then who? If you cannot say who, then this is just another example of the sort of strawman argument that you use to derail any debate involving gun control. And if it wasn’t me, then why would you use such an assertion against me?
Nope, I don’t think that it was my reading of the thread that was the problem here.
It’s common sense that you can’t talk about who’s on your ignore list outside of the Pit. On a discussion board, that’s about the worst insult I can imagine, and we’re not supposed to directly insult other posters outside of the Pit. I’m glad it’s explicitly put in the rules but it should be understood even if it wasn’t.
Allowed in the Pit, but not elsewhere.
It seems to me that there’s a miscommunication here. It looks to me that the OP did want a debate. His issue was not that @Oredigger77 disagreed with him. It was that his post just the typical “the real problem is mental health” reply. And, like those replies, it didn’t actually contain any attempt at a solution.
I mean, I agree that mental health is a problem with shooters But what is the plan to try and treat that problem? What policies are you saying would help? Without that, such posts don’t help the conversation.
@UltraVires’s post also seemed uninterested in proposing a solution. It also didn’t contain anything debatable. Yeah, that’s how the Court responded. Nice to know, but there’s not really anything to respond to as as debate.
That said, I will say that @lissener would do well to be more clear about these things. The miscommunication wasn’t entirely the readers’ fault. His first reply can also come across like “Mental health isn’t the issue, and you’re not allowed to talk about it,” for example. He’d do well to actually explain himself without the attitude that those who were responding to him were lesser.
I do understand the frustration when you make a thread to talk about one topic and it gets hijacked by someone. And I understand being frustrated with a particular poster who has a Pit thread about the same behavior he has in your thread.
However, I would suggest that the rant that @What_Exit replied to would have been better served if posted in said Pit thread. It makes sense to me that a thread be closed if the OP says said thread had been ruined, and was very close to the line of pitting said poster, calling them a bully.
I do think that the mods should consider how they moderated DrDeth in that thread. I note he was modded for a behavior, told that he’d get a Warning if he did it again, but then doesn’t appear to have been given a Warning. It was also noted that this behavior was disingenuous, arguing the poster said something they didn’t.
I would suggest that perhaps a better solution would be to have kicked him out of the thread.
Finally, I don’t think the fact the OP has abandoned a topic (or, as was assumed, was uninterested in debate on said topic) should necessarily mean the thread should be closed. If other posters are willing to debate the topic, why not let them?
Anyways, those are my thoughts.
It’ seems simple to me: if you’re not allowed to exclude hijackers and threadshitters from a thread, you should be allowed not to encourage them.