New rule in Cafe Society?

[stpauler]

@lissener

In this thread about LOST, I contributed a post that takes a negative view of the show. Twickster comes down on me for threadshitting.

This puzzles me.

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. It’s not like you haven’t been called out on being a threadshitter before.

Example 1 where you’re accused of it

How about you contribute meaningfully instead of threadshitting?

Example 2 where you’re accused of it

I didn’t mention any songs in the OP at all, I just mentioned bands. And if you really think they actually hurt music…well, you can think that, but what’s the point of saying it, beyond threadshitting and being pretentious?

Example 3 where you claim you weren’t:

So to recap: my initial statement in the linked thread, while overstated and open to debate and even perhaps to correction, was hardly threadshitting, and hardly pitworthyl. And my subsequent refusal to let stand woodstock’s claim of “dwarfing” omniscience, which would have been let lie–if not cheered–if the participants had been reversed, I have to say I’m just terribly impressed by this particular lissener pitting.

But then you start to see the light and see that it’s not a good thing:

[QUOTE=lissener]
That rule is not as cut and dried. It’s frowned upon, but AFAIK not explicitly forbidden. Probably because it’s not as likely to be as clearly definable as namecalling; it’s usually going to be debatable. Case in point: there’s no threadshitting in this thread, as far as I can tell; my response, for instance, is a perfectly valid response to the OP. Threadshitting is not a vaguely negative response to a question thrown open for whatever answers are on offer; in my understanding, threadshitting is when a thread is begun explicitly to praise or enjoy something, or a funeral thread, and someone drops in for the sole purpose of, well, shitting in the thread. An answer that Miller disagrees with but that is otherwise a perfectly valid response to the OP is, well let’s just call that a subjective definition.
[/QUOTE]

You try it again later to get it:

Aaaaaand we’re back to the gutter. Seriously, why is this kind of aggressive misogyny more acceptable than other reportable transgressions? How is turning every thread that’s about a female artist into a caveman spoogefest NOT threadshitting?

Miller then states that he wishes there was a rule about threadshitting and you replied:

[QUOTE=lissener]
Well, like many other rules–“being a jerk” comes to mind–it would be at the judgment of the moderator. I think such a rule would be workable, and furthermore I think it would improve the CS experience. I think it would be worth trying at least, even if it proves unworkable and is abandoned later.

[/QUOTE]

So it seems you understand what threadshitting is, actively participate in it, and then rally against it when it doesn’t agree with your opinion or your threadshit.

Now, instead of admitting what we (meaning the rest of us) can see as threadshitting, apologizing, and then moving on. We’re treated to a temper tantrum in the original thread and a waste of the mods’ time in this new thread. On something you already should know, especially since you’ve complained about it yourself.

Seriously. Enough.

[BigT]

@lissener

Off topic = threadshitting? I wasn’t moderated for off topic.

When it is negative, yes.

[lissener]

@BigT

When it is negative, yes.

I think that “yes” should be amended to, at most, “probably.” Your cite says: “Usually, but not always, with purposeful intent to derail the discussion.”

Mine clearly had no such intent.

[lissener]

@stpauler

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. It’s not like you haven’t been called out on being a threadshitter before.

Example 1 where you’re accused of it

Example 2 where you’re accused of it

Example 3 where you claim you weren’t:

But then you start to see the light and see that it’s not a good thing:
You try it again later to get it:
Miller then states that he wishes there was a rule about threadshitting and you replied:
So it seems you understand what threadshitting is, actively participate in it, and then rally against it when it doesn’t agree with your opinion or your threadshit.

Now, instead of admitting what we (meaning the rest of us) can see as threadshitting, apologizing, and then moving on. We’re treated to a temper tantrum in the original thread and a waste of the mods’ time in this new thread. On something you already should know, especially since you’ve complained about it yourself.

Seriously. Enough.

Most of your cites, like this post itself, are examples of junior modding; the personal opinions of Dopers, not moderators. This thread was an attempt to cut through the swirl of contradictory personal opinions and discuss the topic more clearly, more specifically, than just a collection of anecdotal junior mod posts.

[Freudian_Slit]

You do seem to have a tendency to come in and say things that aren’t really all that necessary. You yourself disliked it in the Ricki Lee Jones thread (as well as the whole wuss rock tangent in the Coldplay one), so I don’t see the difficulty in showing others the same courtesy you yourself would like to be shown. We all have a bad day and say stuff we probably shouldn’t have once in a while–but you just seem to do it a lot and don’t seem to understand why it’s annoying.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@lissener

I think that “yes” should be amended to, at most, “probably.” Your cite says: “Usually, but not always, with purposeful intent to derail the discussion.”

Mine clearly had no such intent.

Clearly as determined by…? I read it and saw it as an obnoxious comment. I can believe that you didn’t intend it to be such, but I think you can see how other people clearly felt differently.

It was a negative comment whose only purpose was to mock.

[lissener]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Clearly as determined by…? I read it and saw it as an obnoxious comment. I can believe that you didn’t intend it to be such, but I think you can see how other people clearly felt differently.

It was a negative comment whose only purpose was to mock.

Clearly in that I continued posting in good faith, elucidating my opinion. It was clearly not intended to derail the thread because I continued participating in the thread. And it was absolutely not intended to mock anything but the show itself, which is perfectly acceptable in CS. My lifetime best friend of 30 years has been trying to get me to watch LOST since it first aired. I’m even now watching the show at the behest of another friend. Do you think that I’m *mocking *them? As a fan of Showgirls, I certainly know that there’s a huge range of personal taste in such things, and I’ve never mocked someone for liking something that I don’t. Or vice versa. My criticism is always directed at the work, not at its audience.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Exactly. Your purpose was to mock a show in a thread in which it was asked not to do that. A person cannot intend to “threadshit” (as you claim since you kept elucidating your opinion) and yet be doing it. That is the point of many peoples (including mine) posts in this thread. You may think you weren’t, you may not have intended to, you may not see why it was, but your receptive audience feels you were.

[stpauler]

@lissener

Most of your cites, like this post itself, are examples of junior modding; the personal opinions of Dopers, not moderators. This thread was an attempt to cut through the swirl of contradictory personal opinions and discuss the topic more clearly, more specifically, than just a collection of anecdotal junior mod posts.

It’s a collection of your posts and it shows how you’ve been hypocritical. I’m not giving anecdotes, I’m giving a history of your relationship to threadshitting. It’s like you know better but would rather troll the boards and act a victim when you’re caught on it.

I was enjoying that thread until you and the other poster threadshat. Then we had to take a time out for your crap and move the spotlight. Frankly, I’m sick of it, especially from someone who has been here 10 years and should know better.

[lissener]

FWIW, I will of course abide by this new standard of what threadshitting is. If you comb through my many, many posts in my history on this board, you’ll see that I’m not much for threadshitting anyway: I don’t lob driveby turds with the sole intent of vandalizing, sabotaging a thread. If I express a negative opinion, it’s an honest opinion that I’m prepared to debate and defend. Being unpopular doesn’t make it threadshitting.
In this instance, I can see why my post would be seen as off topic. So I will certainly own that, and apologize for it. But simply being off topic does not make it threadshitting, in my opinion. Threadshitting, in my opinion, must contain a vandal’s intention: negative for negativity’s sake, and not a good faith effort to express an opinion that happens to be negative. Lord knows I’ve learned over the years that negative opinions are to be expected in Cafe Society, and when they’re in good faith I try to engage them. When they appear to me to be in bad faith–i.e., threadshitting–I now know that I can report them as such.

In any case, I apologize for the hijack/offtopic post in the LOST thread. Maybe I’ll start a thread on it when I’ve finished the series, if I don’t gouge my own eyes out first.

[lissener]

@stpauler

It’s a collection of your posts and it shows how you’ve been hypocritical. I’m not giving anecdotes, I’m giving a history of your relationship to threadshitting. It’s like you know better but would rather troll the boards and act a victim when you’re caught on it.

You’re mistaken. Those examples were not examples of threadshitting. They were, indeed, examples of *accusations *of threadshitting, but absent an actual moderator ruling, not of actual threadshitting.

When a fellow poster accuses you of threadshitting, the offense is far more likely to be junior modding than threadshitting. If you want to find some examples of my being admonished by a moderator for threadshitting, I’d be interested to see that. Even if I don’t agree with those cases, by definition–the mods decide how the rules are applied–by definition, those would be valid examples.

[Marley23]

@lissener

FWIW, I will of course abide by this new standard of what threadshitting is.

It’s not new in any way. This is a very typical interpretation of the term. But I appreciate your understanding of why people felt the post was off-topic and not in keeping with the rest of the thread.

[tacoloco]

I find it amusing that someone can get this bent out of shape for a mere admonishment from a mod.

[lissener]

@Marley23

It’s not new in any way.

The definition of threadshitting has evolved quite a lot in these forums. I remember a discussion about whether a “good riddance” post in a funeral thread was threadshitting; there were plenty of people who insisted it was not. Nowadays it’s pretty much beyond discussion. The definition continues to evolve: I have no real doubt that my post would not have been considered threadshitting 5 or 6 years ago. I have very little personal doubt that the same can be said just a year ago. But the new standards have been noted, and will be followed.

[lissener]

@tacoloco

I find it amusing that someone can get this bent out of shape for a mere admonishment from a mod.

And . . . another post with nothing but good faith intentions to contribute constructively to the discussion.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

I think what made this situation unique was the fact that OP specifically asked for people to not be negative. To then post something negative seemed willfully rude. Not just off topic but directly opposite of the intent of the thread. In another context your comment may not have been an issue.

[lissener]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

I think what made this situation unique was the fact that OP specifically asked for people to not be negative. To then post something negative seemed willfully rude. Not just off topic but directly opposite of the intent of the thread. In another context your comment may not have been an issue.

I agree. It was thoughtlessly off topic. I had just started watching LOST, and was kind of itching to talk about it, and whoomp, there’s a LOST thread. It seemed relatively open ended; I mean, it depends how you define “mystery,” right? But again, it was a good faith effort to discuss the show. There was zero intention to sabotage or mock. Zero.

[Skywatcher]

@lissener

The definition of threadshitting has evolved quite a lot in these forums. I remember a discussion about whether a “good riddance” post in a funeral thread was threadshitting; there were plenty of people who insisted it was not. Nowadays it’s pretty much beyond discussion. The definition continues to evolve: I have no real doubt that my post would not have been considered threadshitting 5 or 6 years ago. I have very little personal doubt that the same can be said just a year ago. But the new standards have been noted, and will be followed.

Café Society, 20 January 2005: don’t be a jerk and spoil the fun that others are having.

[tacoloco]

@lissener

And . . . another post with nothing but good faith intentions to contribute constructively to the discussion.

There’s nothing to discuss here.

You did something wrong and a moderator gave you a teeny slap on the wrist and you’re acting like you were on the verge of being suspended.

In short, you’re having an entirely inappropriate reaction to a very, very minor thing.

It simply does not matter if it were strictly threadshitting or just off topic. The net result is the same and nobody is keep score of the specific reason a moderator gave someone an admonishment. You’re not accumulating threadshitting demerits.

[tacoloco]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

I think what made this situation unique was the fact that OP specifically asked for people to not be negative. To then post something negative seemed willfully rude. Not just off topic but directly opposite of the intent of the thread. In another context your comment may not have been an issue.

Lissener will NEVER see that point, IMO.