# What was the point of killing this thread? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 25, 2019, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150 "2019-02-25T02:13:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/1 "2019-02-25T02:13:35Z")
[https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21501444#post21501444](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21501444#post21501444) Yes, we have done the 22nd Amendment debate before, but instead of having it again,the mod steps in and kills it. The answer to the OP’s question is “no” but as another poster in the thread suggested, a rehashing of the 22nd Amendment debate could have led to an explanation as to why. Are the servers too slow to handle yet another such debate? ---
**Author:** ![Krav\_Manga](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/krav_manga/32/3153_2.png) [@Krav\_Manga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krav_Manga)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/2 "2019-02-25T02:22:12Z")
I thought the ‘did I stutter’ part was nice. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/3 "2019-02-25T02:27:08Z")
?? That thread is not closed. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/4 "2019-02-25T02:32:12Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > ?? That thread is not closed. No, but it effectively killed it. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/5 "2019-02-25T03:10:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21501444#post21501444](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21501444#post21501444) > > Yes, we have done the 22nd Amendment debate before, but instead of having it again,the mod steps in and kills it. The answer to the OP’s question is “no” but as another poster in the thread suggested, a rehashing of the 22nd Amendment debate could have led to an explanation as to why. > > Are the servers too slow to handle yet another such debate? Do you actually have some new point or insight to make on the topic? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/6 "2019-02-25T03:27:38Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Do you actually have some new point or insight to make on the topic? Nothing earth shattering, but neither does anyone else on threads about UHC, gun control, or Trump, but we allow those. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/7 "2019-02-25T03:36:55Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Nothing earth shattering, but neither does anyone else on threads about UHC, gun control, or Trump, but we allow those. Perhaps you should open a new thread. Then you can argue the issue to your heart’s content. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/8 "2019-02-25T03:36:57Z")
Mods shouldn’t be gatekeepers, deciding whether the conversation is of sufficient novelty and quality to continue. Mods should be guides, helping folks have threads with conversations the posters therein find helpful. It doesn’t especially matter whether that topic had been covered before. If folks were covering it, what’s the harm? The thread manifestly wasn’t going anywhere else, so it’s not like it was stifling conversation. It’s not like it was one of over a dozen threads on the same topic cluttering up the forum. I’m not seeing the benefit to modding it. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/9 "2019-02-25T03:42:02Z")
I actually received a report, asking to have the thread redirected because someone thought it was a hijack and hoped for the thread to be on the OP’s topic instead. I decided that I agreed with the report and did some redirection. And, as Colibri says, if you want another discussion on the 22nd, you can always feel free to start a new thread on it. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/10 "2019-02-25T03:45:48Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I actually received a report, asking to have the thread redirected because someone thought it was a hijack and hoped for the thread to be on the OP’s topic instead. I decided that I agreed with the report and did some redirection. > > And, as Colibri says, if you want another discussion on the 22nd, you can always feel free to start a new thread on it. When the last post in a thread is a moderator telling people to stop discussing the thing they want to discuss, it’s hard for me to see how that’s successful moderation. I understand the intent, but nobody picked up the original meat of the thread, so the effect was to kill the only discussion anyone wanted to participate in within that thread. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/11 "2019-02-25T05:22:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > When the last post in a thread is a moderator telling people to stop discussing the thing they want to discuss, it’s hard for me to see how that’s successful moderation. I understand the intent, but nobody picked up the original meat of the thread, so the effect was to kill the only discussion anyone wanted to participate in within that thread. If you’re that interested, and all the other dozens of threads about that issue haven’t satisfied you, start another thread. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/12 "2019-02-25T08:45:36Z")
Did the person who made the report post again in that thread? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/13 "2019-02-25T10:28:19Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > If you’re that interested, and all the other dozens of threads about that issue haven’t satisfied you, start another thread. You seem to be having a different conversation than LHOD. LHOD is arguing about moderation style and best practices, claiming that the current moderation choice was not one. Telling him that he could start another thread doesn’t at all address his point. His argument is that mods should not shut down a “hijack” if that hijack is the actual thing people are interested in discussing. There are two ways to deal with something being off topic: you can do what **JC** did, or you can just change the title so that now the current conversation is on topic. **LHOD** is saying that doing the latter would fix the problem much better, with less interruption. Making people make a new thread is not a good choice for that. It shuts down the conversation, and cuts off participation. If a mod restriction causes a thread to die, then he argues that your moderation choice was poor. Ideally, you want to be able to achieve proper moderation while also keeping conversations going. He does seem to provide an exception: if the comments were actually breaking the rules, it makes sense to prioritize stopping the rule violation instead of keeping the thread going. But that is not the case here: the issue was just that we’d had this conversation before. The funny thing is, I actually wind up thinking JC made the right choice, just for different reasons. So there is a pretty good argument for what he did. But “you can start another thread” is basically a thought terminating cliche in ATMB. Yes, we can make a new thread. How does that address the topic of not shutting down ongoing conversations? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/14 "2019-02-25T10:29:56Z")
I’m gonna trust you not to just copy my reasoning, and give my counterargument to **LHOD** : [spoiler]There is value in making sure that people feel like they can start threads on a particular topic and not have it hijacked into becoming about a perennial topic. In the short term, enforcing the rules like **JC** did may shut down conversation, but, in the long term, it can make people more willing to discuss various topics, knowing they won’t be hijacked. Even if this particular topic at this particular time doesn’t garner much interest, other similar topics at different times may. There are definitely topics I have wanted to discuss that I don’t bother bringing up here because I know they will turn into a hijack. And I’ve seen many posters say the same. People will even say that they tried to discuss something and the thread got hijacked. **JC** made the right call. I just wish he used more reasoning and less “I felt like he was right” in making decisions. Sometimes it leads to absurdities, like his ruling that some new rules being proposed for baseball count as one of the “ongoing great discussions of our time” and shouldn’t go to the Game Room where the sports people congregate.[/spoiler] ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/15 "2019-02-25T11:49:07Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > His argument is that mods should not shut down a “hijack” if that hijack is the actual thing people are interested in discussing. There are two ways to deal with something being off topic: you can do what **JC** did, or you can just change the title so that now the current conversation is on topic. > > **LHOD** is saying that doing the latter would fix the problem much better, with less interruption. Making people make a new thread is not a good choice for that. It shuts down the conversation, and cuts off participation. Not exactly. There’s a third option, which is to do nothing and let the conversation continue organically. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/16 "2019-02-25T14:39:12Z")
I would like to ask a factual question in that thread about thew effect of a different clause in the constitution. May I do so? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/17 "2019-02-25T15:25:29Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Not exactly. There’s a third option, which is to do nothing and let the conversation continue organically. Why bother having topics at all, if people don’t have to pay attention to them anyway? Is there an easy way to tell the difference between an “organic” change and a hijack? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/18 "2019-02-25T15:35:36Z")
Clearly, it’s difficult, especially given the number of reports about ‘end this hijack’ (including by LHoD) we see each week. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/19 "2019-02-25T15:40:50Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Clearly, it’s difficult, especially given the number of reports about ‘end this hijack’ (including by LHoD) we see each week. 🙂 I’m not saying it’s not difficult. I’m just saying that if a thread doesn’t continue past “end this hijack,” it turns out in retrospect to have been a bad move. It’s worth paying attention to the occasions in which the last post in a thread is a moderator instruction, and figuring out why the instruction killed the thread, and whether it was really worth doing. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150/20 "2019-02-25T16:05:48Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You seem to be having a different conversation than LHOD. LHOD is arguing about moderation style and best practices, claiming that the current moderation choice was not one. Telling him that he could start another thread doesn’t at all address his point. > > His argument is that mods should not shut down a “hijack” if that hijack is the actual thing people are interested in discussing. There are two ways to deal with something being off topic: you can do what **JC** did, or you can just change the title so that now the current conversation is on topic. > > **LHOD** is saying that doing the latter would fix the problem much better, with less interruption. Making people make a new thread is not a good choice for that. It shuts down the conversation, and cuts off participation. > > If a mod restriction causes a thread to die, then he argues that your moderation choice was poor. Ideally, you want to be able to achieve proper moderation while also keeping conversations going. > > He does seem to provide an exception: if the comments were actually breaking the rules, it makes sense to prioritize stopping the rule violation instead of keeping the thread going. But that is not the case here: the issue was just that we’d had this conversation before. > > The funny thing is, I actually wind up thinking JC made the right choice, just for different reasons. So there is a pretty good argument for what he did. But “you can start another thread” is basically a thought terminating cliche in ATMB. > > Yes, we can make a new thread. How does that address the topic of not shutting down ongoing conversations? Thread drift happens. But it’s ridiculous to think that it should be tolerated in the first few posts. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-killing-this-thread/830150.md?page=2)