“Emily we are not talking about squirrels right now.”
Real world this happens in many meetings I run. “The agenda item right now is X. I understand that you think the broad history of Y has something to do with understanding X but we are going to keep the discussion focused. Any more comments about this agenda item?” History does guide how long of a run the specific speaker gets to demonstrate the direct relevance before that happens.
And yes if I am running the meeting I make that call.
Did you use your powers of ESP to predict that Emily was about to bring up squirrels or did you wait for it to happen? And what was the discussion anyway? It didn’t happen to be about bird feeders did it?
Once again, I’m going to point out that the mods have volition and they make the moderation decisions. I think it’s unfair and inappropriate to assign blame to the OP when you don’t like the moderation.
In this case, the explanation for the moderation decision appears to be:
I’m not sure that characterizing this as “the OP . . . having it declared a hijack” is particularly unfair or inappropriate.
No ESP needed. When the meeting is about the best kind of bird feeder is best for bluejays and Emily complains about the squirrels eating up all the seed in her feeder, you have two options. You can let Emily keep breaking in about how the damn squirrels get into her bird feeder no matter what she does, start up a side conversation with the person next to her who’s tried every trick in the book to keep squirrels out but nothing works, then someone across the table can start yelling over about this nifty gadget their neighbor uses to repel squirrels. Then the people who are trying to solve the original problem can’t hear themselves think.
Or you can tell Emily that we’re not talking about squirrels and she maybe pouts for a while but the original point of the meeting happens and the blue jays get their perfect feeder. Emily is welcome to have a meeting about squirrelproof bird feeders, or ask that it be added to the agenda for the next meeting. Just like how someone who wants to discuss a side topic can make their own thread to do that.
Why wouldn’t you wait until Emily does actually disrupt the discussion before stepping in. Oh right, you forgot that it’s not your discussion, you are a moderator and your job is to wait until the problem occurs no matter how smart you think you are.
And what if Emily has hijacked every previous discussion to talk about squirrels? Does the moderator have to wait until the new discussion is well and truly hijacked before stepping in, or can he/she take earlier action based on previous squirrel-themed disruptions?
Reread the entire paragraph, not just the sentence you quoted.
If that has happened Emily should already have been dealt with for violations of rules. If Emily is allowed in the debate in the first place then yes, we have to wait for the thread to be hijacked, which usually does not mean that only Emily has veered too far off topic, but that others have also. I might think different if this was a real problem.
I did not and do not have any such motivation.
Two people complained(as far as I know), then the mods looked into it and made a decision. If you think anything happened because of a decision I made, you really have no idea of what is going on. As the mods could tell you (if they were much less diplomatic then they actually are) I can be a whiny little bitch sometimes when it comes to reporting stuff like this but they usually let whatever I am currently bitching about blow over…and rightfully so. If I had any extra influence on this message board it would be rather obvious. My involvement in what happened in this particular case is trivial at best, and this repeated attempt to somehow make me the villain is a waste of time.
No, they don’t. Where is that written?
Sorry, IMHO the mods should wait for those rules to be violated.
Your opinion doesn’t signify unless you can point to a rule that says that. Since rules seem to be what matter to you.
Did you not make the decision to report the posts?
Okay, thanks.
I’ll end my post here, to not go off-topic.
On reflection, a fair cop. The OP is not taking @TriPolar’s position that “Hijacks can’t be prevented without stifling debate” but complaining that this specific instance what was labelled a hijack was instead discussion germane to the OP.
And looking at the specific thread I have to agree. Even with my bias toward considering the preference of the opening poster very seriously, and with a longstanding frustration regarding hijacks being allowed to derail, heck trainwreck, decent discussions, it seems impossible to meaningfully engage in any discussion on the subject without covering what is and is not (and should or should not be) the criminal offense (felony or misdemeanor) defined as “child endangerment” in general, with some specific compare and contrast. And then asking if the op would want to apply a different standard for child endangerment charges because “gun” or the same?
Posts are not automatically moderated just because someone decided to report them. It’s up to the moderators to decide what to do with the post report, so there is nothing wrong with someone reporting a post. Users are also not required to disclose whether or not they decided to report a post.
Given that the vast majority of your post reports are rejected, I would think that you would understand this better than most users.
I do not know what post reports were made in this particular case (I could look it up but it’s not my forum to moderate), but let’s not give anyone any grief over whether or not they decided to report a post.
Sure, but as the Staff has said over and over, you cant do anything unless the post is reported.
