Normally, I can see where “I am not bothered by this” might be seen as threadshitting (and I emphasize “might”) in some threads, but the OP explicitly asks if anyone is bothered by this whole FB flap. The poster just said: No, I’m not bothered by it and the reason is I don’t use FB". The poster didn’t say the topic was stupid anymore than the OP did. The thread could easily have have been a poll, since it was posted in MPSIMS, not GD.
Had the topic been “Isn’t FB great?” then, yeah, threadshitting. But the topic was about whether anyone is bothered by the way FB uses their data.
N.B.: Only a mod note, so no harm no foul. I’m just really curious because it did not seem like threadshitting at all to me. I’m not asking for the mod note to be rescinded or anything, I’m just looking for more of an explanation as to why that post was considered threadshitting, especially since the moderator later called the post a “classic example of threadshitting”. And, btw, I think the second mod note (about junior mod’ing) was spot on. Good call on that one.
The tooth domiciled one is probably interpreting the post to have an implied assumption of addressing people who actually use Facebook. It isn’t too different from someone starting a thread on concerns about people (say) hacking into their cell phone cameras and someone coming in to say that they don’t even own a cell phone.
I felt like that was threadshitting, however, I don’t think Leaffan was Jr Modding.
Leaffan didn’t tell Beckdawrek what to do, if what she didn’t was against the rules, advise her not to do it again. He asked why she posted to a thread to tell us that she’s not bothered by an issue surrounding a service she doesn’t use, has never used and never will use.
Threadshitting - “belittling the topic or the people discussing it. It typically takes the form of a dismissive comment, like “Who cares?” or “This is stupid!” or similar”
Jr Modding - “When someone who is not a moderator asserts that something is a violation of SDMB rules.”
I’m not sure it was intentional threadshitting, I think Beckdawreck just couldn’t fucking resist commenting even though she had nothing to actually say.
Did the offending post add anything to the thread? … doesn’t seem to, so why did the poster add it? … I agree it doesn’t seem to be threadshitting, more like threadfarting … no real substance but we all know it happened … it’s just a note, the poster apologized, [del]let’s just move on and try to stay on-topic in the future[/del] …
Mod hat on, but no warning issued, so it’s a note. However, I don’t think people should ignore things that mods say, that they think are unfair, just because they’re not official warnings. Assume that you’d get a warning the next time you or someone else does the same thing.
Yes it’s a new board rule: every thread must have at least one Beckdawrek non sequitur in it. If you see a thread Beckdawrek has not yet posted, please alert a mod so it can be rectified.
The question in the OP: “Am I the only one not spun up about Facebook?“
Imagine would-be posters who — upon reading that question — think to themselves, “Oh, no, you’re not; since you asked, it just so happens that I, too, am not spun up. Naturally I grant, for the sake of argument, that you have a great reason for asking; I therefore figure that my answer is, by definition, also relevant.”
Should they reply? If so, what should they post? Just a ‘no’, and nothing else besides? If someone asks why they’re not spun up, can they then add two sentences?
I viewed it at threadshitting, because it was demeaning the entire topic. The poster didn’t come into the thread to discuss whether they were upset or not upset about the data mining allegations, but to crap on the idea of even using Facebook. If they had said (something to the effect of) “Yes, this would really bother me and that’s why I never signed up for Facebook” or “I don’t use Facebook, and this was one of the reasons why” it would have been fine, because it would have been participating in the thread.
It was a drive by pooh-poohing of the thread subject of the “You’re worried about Facebook? Ha- I never even use it!” variety.
It was a note and not a warning, because it was mild. But these kind of posts from a relatively new (if prolific) user should be responded to because they do run the risk of spoiling a good conversation.
I think you were incorrect in post 11. The poster answered the question that the OP asked.
If he asks; “Who’s upset they raised the prices on tomatoes?”
And someone answers; “I am not bothered at all. Never eat them. Never will.”
I think that’s about what happened and I think the answer was appropriate.
Someone asked for an opinion, someone gave it.
But, it’s clearly your decision and we’ll support you in this.
OK, thanks for the explanation. I said all I need to say about my opinion in the OP, so I won’t debate the topic. I’ll only add I was curious mainly because I almost posted pretty much the same thing until I saw your mod note, and was also curious what other posters here thought.
But I thought several people going into a thread to announce they “don’t use a thing” or “like the thing” or “make their own thing better at home” was Basic Doping 101.
For example:
post 14, 15, 27, 28, 35, 39, 47, 51 (mentions their homemade is better) in this Olive Garden thread.
post 10, 11, 22, 24 (can do better at home), 30 (never been) in another Oive Garden thread.
