More confusion about "off topic"

Apologies for an imprecise link to a currently locked thread.

Around post 1626 of the thread “How can Trump win at this point”, WE tagged my post as off topic. In that thread a lot of people had been tossing around the accusation that anyone who votes for Trump is a fascist and/or racist. I find that characterization challenging, and have long been trying to figure it out.

In an attempt, I posted conversations with people I know and was able to talk with. SOme folk responded, well, they are just fascists and racists.

Ought there have been YET ANOTHER splinter thread, asking, “Is every Trump voter a racist/fascist?” If not, ISTM that the thread went “off topic” well before post 1626. Why, for example, was The Librarian’s post 1624 not tagged as off topic?

Hell, and now peopleare gonna come in here asking, “What is the issue about raw metals?” (Title says “Ore” instead of “More.”)

If a kindhearted mod would edit that, I’d appreciate it.

I added a staff note to the most recent 4. I am not going through that long thread and checking each post to see which other ones are off-topic.

So yes, if you want this conversation, please start a new thread.

A modnote is a guidance, also the exchange was getting heated and personal and that is what got a flag. Though the comment was edited by the writer before I got there.

It was time for the hijack to end.

We don’t catch everything. We depend on posters to flag posts that are going off topic. We also don’t read everything. It’s unreasonable to expect either thing, in my view.

We deal with hijacks when we catch them ourselves or when someone flags them. Best we can do.

But what exactly was the “hijack” and when did it occur? You mods toss that word about as tho it has a clear meaning.

I didn’t reread the entire thread, but at least as far back as post 1588, we had this little gem.

Is it just that - at some point - someone complained/flagged?

I thought I was responding to a series of posts/threads of conversation. Sure, a modnote is no big deal. But having MY posts tagged and ME being told to cut it off sure gives the impression that I did something wrong. I’m trying to figure what that was to avoid repetition.

The hijack which apparently started long before your post, was this stuff about cutting off or not cutting off friends and family that vote for Trump and such.

That is not what the OP or even the title of the OP is about.

It is time for that hijack to end.

Hijack is when an off-topic set of posts keep going. This was clearly a case.



I said this somewhere recently and will keep saying it. Just because someone else posted off-topic is not an excuse to reply and keep going off-topic or even more off-topic.



If you are responding to something in a thread that is basically off-topic or likely to lead to a hijack, try this:

How to Reply as a linked Topic:

Click Reply, in the upper left corner of the reply window is the reply type button, looks like a curving arrow point to the right.

Choose Reply as linked topic and it starts a new thread. As an example, you can choose GD, IMHO or The Pit for it.

That is actually the best method.

I can about guarantee that if you’re involved in a snarky back and forth with one other poster, as you were with mozchron, you’re probably both off topic and vulnerable to a mod note.

So trying to ascertain why persons might vote for Trump IS NOT a hijack? Not exactly sure what is covered by “and such.”

Once a thread gets past 10-20 posts, how narrowly is the topic defined?

I’m on record as saying that mods should be less stringent with hijacks. But this definitely was one.

You weren’t talking about how Trump could win. You were asking why people who weren’t fascists would vote for Trump, and whether one can be friends with someone who supports Donald Trump and/or his LGBT policies.

And even without the hijack rules, I would have reported you for attacking people for disagreeing with you. You were getting offended by other people’s positions and getting heated.

This is EXACTLY what the hijack rules were originally created for: to stop this sort of heated argument over something off-topic.

IMHO, if you post the words “This may be off-topic, but…” you should not post anything after that.
Then you should go back and erase the words “This may be off-topic, but…”.

Bingo. This is pretty straightforward, too.

ETA: Or it’s the perfect moment to employ the process outlined by What_Exit above, to start a new thread teeing off someone’s post in the existing thread.

There’s a thing I’ve done sometimes, which is a two-paragraph post. First paragraph indulges in something that’s somewhat off-topic. The second paragraph ties the first paragraph back to the thread. I don’t think I’ve been modded for it, so maybe it’s okay?

If you can’t figure out how to write that second paragraph, maybe the first one shouldn’t happen either.

I’ll see if I can remember an example.

We tend to be a lot more lenient on those. But sometimes they lead to hijacks also and the off-topic bit still needs to be shut down.

I do that. I make my aside comment, then make sure to bring it back to the actual topic. I don’t as a mod have a problem with that, unless it becomes obvious that someone is attempting to use it as a tactic to mostly hijack or the aside becomes a hijack.

But usually it’s someone else who is hijacking at that point.

Hijacks are moderated unequally.
From what I see.
If it gets flagged I think Mods look in. Maybe don’t read all that much of the thread, everytime.
I mean, people have real lives and all
Mods are people.
Mods are not gods.

Which forum would that thread go in?

I believe we’re most often associated with hall-monitors or crossing-guards not crossing-gods

Occasionally we act like border collies trying to herd a few of the threads.

It could be Politics & Elections (P&E) as probably a little too political for In My Humble Opinion otherwise the The BBQ Pit

I’m just thinking some of the truthful replies to that question might not be suitable for P&E or IMHO

I agree. Thus why I mentioned the Pit.