I’m a little confused. The thread is about a union of actors–SAG-AFTRA–and an action they’ve taken as the actors’ union to get better working conditions (including compensation) for their members.
I definitely get that it shouldn’t be a discussion of Big Pharma, and I also agree that the discussion of labor dynamics and rights in general was getting off-course. But isn’t a discussion of the actors’ demands–e.g., better residuals–exactly within the thread’s purview?
I get why N_B’s “so join a union” is off-track. But Loach’s talk about residuals seems on-track.
Actually if Loach’s post wasn’t a reply to one I considered part of the hijack, I don’t think I would have staff noted it.
It seems on topic if not a reply.
So pretty borderline. But also no penalty, I was just trying to stop what happened any way with the reply by the poster thread banned.
Loach posted almost the same time as my modnote, so I wouldn’t have moderated any poster for that.
Staff notes are generally thread guidances and not poster guidances.
I was one of those who flagged the thread for the ongoing hijack. It’s not my forum so I wasn’t going to act as a mod. What Exit decided at the time to allow the wider discussion to see where it went. It led to a further hijack. Since I was one who thought the thread was getting derailed in the first place, my posts were attempts to keep on track with the specific issues with the SAG WGA strike. I think I succeeded in maintaining on track by speaking only about things like residuals and not about if unions are good or not.
My response of “so join a union” was in reply to Loach’s comment on the benefit of being in a union in order to get residuals whereas non-union members get none.
I’m not clear how that is particularly off-track given the ongoing back-and-forth but no matter, had I seen the mod notes to drop all hijacks I’d have been happy to do so (and had offered as much earlier in thread, I was fully aware of the hijack potential)
One drawback of the mod note system seems to be, on my browser set up at least, that when I click to jump to a post that has responded to me, any general mod notes in the thread are skipped over and the moderators instructions are not seen.
It did not come up on the screen, it disappears off the top into my browser header.
It may well be a quirk of my set up but had either directive been seen I simply wouldn’t have posted. I get the feeling you think I did see it and chose to post anyway.
A small amount of leeway and a quick note would’ve solved all problems.
I just saw the thread was still running and that another poster has continued with an even greater hijack than I was thrown off the thread for.
No action taken. Why is that?
Can you explain why my suggestion to join a union in order to get residuals resulted in a thread ban and yet Voyager’s much longer response to me which was nothing to do with residuals is allowed without comment?
a) You didn’t report it. Posting here about it is not reporting
b) Most of the post isn’t the reply to you, but an even longer separate reply to another poster, so it comes across as less hijack-y (and a lot less personal) than your flippant post. So that might be why no-one else reported it.
-a continued hijack can only be sanctioned if a formal complaint is made
-A continuation of a hijack will not be considered for sanction as long as the post in question is long enough and/or is continued within a post that has a non-hijack purpose
-a short reply that is to the point is both flippant and personal and liable for sanction even when it is response to a subject that is deemed on-topic.
No. It’s the quickest way to bring things to mod’s attention, but they can see it other ways. But those other ways aren’t guaranteed.
No, I was suggesting why no-one else considered that it merited reporting, not why it wouldn’t be sanctioned if reported.
Yours was flippant, and flippant replies to long posts like Loach’s do come across personal. “To the point” is your own take. Others (whoever reported it, plus the mod) clearly differed.
FYI, to me it seemed sarcastic.
I wasn’t actually commenting about the modding itself, but rather why your post might have been reported and this wasn’t.
I don’t want a post reviewed, The post in question in not something that bothers me but it is clearly in violation of the multiple notes you attached to the thread. The post isn’t a problem, the double standard being applied by the moderation, is.
I’m simply requesting some clarity on why it was not considered by you to be a continuation of a hijack and no comment passed on it and yet mine (which was far more on topic) was, and worthy of immediate suspension from the thread.
What about that response to me made it not a continuation of the hijack? Because it clearly was nothing to do with the on-topic discussion on residuals which you are happy with.
Was it the length?
Was it the fact that they added some on-topic content as well?
Was it the that you are not aware of it? (now you are)
Was it that a formal complaint was not made?
Is there a factor that I’m not seeing which made you throw me out and not them?
As did they, and even worse because by then there were even more notices on the thread that you are confident they must have seen and ignored.
As far as I can tell, the major hijack about open/closed shops occurred because N_B kept saying such odd and contradictory things about unions in general that I and others were trying to give him a Labor Dynamics 101 so he could address issues accurately.
That was unwise, clearly, and I regret doing so; but the “so join a union” comment displayed more of that contradictory misunderstanding of labor that rose to the level of absurdist non sequitur. It was flip, yes; but it was frustratingly off-point. I appreciate the quashing of that.
As a line manager for many years I’ve dealt with unions and their representatives.
I said nothing self-contradictory at all. I certainly do hold opinions on unions that some may disagree with but that is a completely different thing.
I merely referred to balancing the rights of employers, non-union workers and union workers and I draw the line at a different place to others. I don’t automatically grant the latitude to unions that others do. I see nothing wrong in bringing in workers to keep a company going.
You may not like that idea but it is not contradictory to any other view I hold.
People seemed unable to understand how someone can support the right to strike while simultaneously not supporting the aims of a specific strike itself.
You think it is absurd to tell someone to “join a union” if they want to be part of union deal that guarantees residuals? That was the specific topic to which I replied.
And you think I’m saying odd things about unions?
But all that is irrelevant. The reason I was given for ejection from the thread was a continuation of a hijack, that was it. Nothing about content or tone.
The comment after mine that continued the hijack in reference to closed shops has not been moderated. That’s a double standard and I’m pointing it out publicly and would like clarity.
I’m not going to relitigate your posts in that thread; this isn’t the place for it, and they speak for themselves. The fact that you believe your “join a union” comment was on-point and worth defending? It’s more evidence that your ban from the thread is good for the thread.
The comment after yours did mention closed shops–but in the specific context of SAG-AFTRA, not in a general Union Dynamics 101 way. It was getting the thread back on track. As long as nobody else comes into the thread making bizarre contradictory posts about unions in general, I’m optimistic it’ll stay on track.