Twixster, About The Hamster Kid Thread...

About This Message Board
1

The subject is this thread in MPSIMS, for those not following it. The thread was about The Hamster King’s kid having been jumped by a couple of bullies, and the results of that incident. A couple of days ago, it got hijacked by people intent on debating whether it was “a typical schoolyard fight” or bullying, and the relative merits of school administration discipline vs. the juvenile justice system. Twix came down heavy on those pursuing the debate, and they ceased it. Then yesterday the debate was revived by others, and she locked it down, explaining her reasons in two final posts.

I am not in the slightest objecting to her use of her moderator powers here, and I’m only bringing it up because I have a question, and ATMB is the place to ask such questions.

The debate was far from contrary to the rules for the SDMB; in fact she encouraged those involved to open a thread in Great Debates to debate it. What was not appropriate was hijacking The Hamster King’s thread to conduct it, and she said as much.

What I’m wondering is why she decided to simply lock the entire thread down at this point, rather than, either after the first debate or its recrudescence, splitting out the debate posts and shipping the resulting new thread off to GD, indicating what she’d done in a Mod Note post and reminding everyone to stick to the particular incident that was the topic of the MPSIMS thread.

That way, instead of one locked thread, to which nobody can reply, those interested in following the ongoing story of what happened to The Hamster Kid and his attackers could do so in the original thread, and those more interested in the broader debate could conduct it over in the appropriate forum.

I’m sure she had reasons for acting as she did, but I don’t know them, and so I’m pursuing the question here. There have been other instances when a hijack onto a topic, worthy of discussion in itself, has derailed other threads, and moderators here seem curiously loath to use the thread-splitting feature to separate on-topic and hijack-oriented posts into separate threads. So it’s not just a one-shot idle-curiosity about why she handled this particular thread as she did, but an attempt to raise the question of splitting threads with staff.

I reiterate that I am in no way condemning her decision, just wondering why staff don’t use that bit of board functionality in general and in particular with this topic, where both original incident and hijack debate were interesting topics. And so I’m asking the question, in the proper forum to do so.

2

I can’t speak for Twickster obviously, but was there musch more to be said on the original topic in that thread? It seemed to have pretty much run its course.

3

I locked the thread yesterday afternoon because I was in the middle of a busy day at work and didn’t have time to deal with it right then. I then came back in the evening when I had time to read it through carefully and decide what to do about it.

Why I didn’t split the thread myself. First off, it didn’t occur to me. Now that it’s been suggested – it would be a fair amount of work to sort out on a post by post basis who’s on topic and who’s not, which post should go into which thread. And should I start a third thread in the Pit for the name-calling, and further determine what goes there? And then deal with all the people who think I put their posts in the wrong thread and want them moved to one of the others?

Sorry – y’all don’t pay me enough. Sorry if that sounds like a dismissive answer, but it’s the truth.

It seems to me that if people are interested in debating an issue, they could start their own thread. I suggested several times they do so. With the multi-quote feature, which works across forums, if someone wants to cite a bunch of specific posts from the old thread to start a new thread, it’s easy to do so.

ETA: Sorry, I realize I missed one of Polycarp’s questions – why I didn’t shut it down earlier. In general, I try to give people the opportunity to stop the hijacks and return to the main topic of the thread if they wish to, which is, obviously, impossible if I lock the thread. I usually keep an eye on threads that I’ve issued a mod note in to see if people are complying, and it turned out that a few people did have things to say that were on topic after I told people to stop the debate in that thread. The thread then pretty well died down, so it seemed that people had pretty much had their chance to say what they wanted to. Then MeanOldLady came back in and started stirring things up both with the debate and with name calling of people whose opinions she disagreed with, which is why I locked it at that point, and why I issued the warning that evening, since MOL’s posts were in direct contradiction of my instructions in the thread.

4

Thanks, Twix. I can certainly respect an answer of, in essence, “Sounds simple to suggest in principle, but in practice it’s waaaaay too much work.” Which kind of answers the broader “Why don’t mods here split threads generally?” one too. Just as a quick clarification, I see my writing style was a bit obtuse: I didn;t intend to suggest closing the thread after the first hijack, but splitting it then. And of course the same answer applies then as now.

Thanks again for explaining.

5

No prob – it’s a reasonable question.

And phrased reasonably clearly – I misread what clause went with what in your fourth paragraph.

I do hope that people who are advised to start a new thread in a different forum remember that they can quote over relevant posts, so that they don’t necessarily start the whole discussion from scratch.

6

To give a perspective from GQ:

Hijacks happen pretty regularly in GQ, especially among people who may want to debate certain side issues in a discussion more suitable for GD. While these could potentially be split off into a new thread, as twickster says this would often be a lot of work sorting out which posts were on topic and which were off. Also, the OP of the new thread might not clearly spell out what is being discussed or debated. (And a moderator couldn’t write a new OP, because it would be newer than the posts in the original thread and the board software would automatically put it later in the thread.) In general, it’s better for someone interested in a side discussion to write a new OP. Also, if a discussion has become heated, having to start fresh can help to cool things off.

7

$40,000 a year is pretty good money for being a mod, certainly enough to warrant the time it takes to split threads.

8

For those who were unaware: the moderators here are unpaid volunteers. Despite recurring rumors of hookers and blow, neither has ever reached my house, and TubaDiva seems to have cornered the market on offerings of chocolate.

9

Bear in mind that’s the gross reimbursement, which doesn’t factor in expenses like snark lessons, hemorrhoid pillows, decision-making Magic 8-Balls, et cetera.

10

I’ll be in Philly in the middle of August for a wedding…should I bring you chocolate?
And if so, do I get to break a rule?

-D/a

11

Yes. However, the only rule that bribing a moderator allows you to break, is the rule against bribing moderators.

12

I thought you weren’t supposed to talk about that rule.

(Anyone else really really reallllly happy to see a question about mod actions that has no vitriol or sneak-snarks in it? Not completely rare, but not common enough.)

13

Seems like an experiment worth making. Lemme see, you give me chocolate, you break a rule … whatever happens next, I’ve got the chocolate, right?

Me! Me! (even without the so-far-still-hypothetical chocolate fromd D/a)

14

LOL, died. It was still on the first page. It never left, and it seemed like people were still talking about whether it’s a good idea to call the cops to me. But okay, you’re the boss. I just work here.

15

BTW, there’s not really any more to the story. The toe’s still sore, but healing. My son’s return to school was uneventful. He hasn’t seen the kids since, but it’s a big school and he didn’t see them before so that means nothing. We’ve heard nothing from the administration.

16

But…what if it’s really good? Like my individual chocolate soufflé? Then you’d be hooked.

Such a shame the hotel room probably won’t have a full oven…
-D/a