I agree in general. But there have been cases where a hijack reaches the point where an entire thread gets closed. I feel this option would be an intermediate step which would hopefully stop the hijacking while allowing the rest of the thread to continue.
Hijackers should be dealt with (and they are). We don’t need busybody thread closures, or more rules. Esp backward is the concept of implementing additional rules to prevent threads from being closed that should not be closed in the first place.
There’s no additional “rule” here; there’s just a suggested consequence for breaking the rules, a compromise between letting an obnoxious hijack run rampant and closing a discussion that some people are participating in productively.
The consequence some are suggesting that might make things move more smoothly involves more subjective decisions for moderators, more work for them. Imo, this suggestion/change opens up more worm cans that should remain closed.
Like I have said, I feel strongly against most thread closures - esp the recent ones that seem to have brought this topic to light. Thread closures are not the way to solve problems occurring in the thread(s).
To cite wrongful thread closures to emphasize the need for new policy flies in the face of common sense, imo.
There is nothing broken or in need of fixing, here. Except for the wrongful thread closures.
Throwing people out of threads is a great idea. I’m weary of seeing one or two jackasses getting threads closed via their trolling, which in many cases I have a fair suspicion was probably one of their goals in the first place.
Throwing people off the board is a great idea as well. I understand at least as well as anyone here the importance of advertising page hits and paying memberships. But I contend that a single toxic poster can cause far more damage than their membership is worth, especially if said toxic poster has no special skills, education, experience, knowledge, or compassion to contribute to the board.
Given the experience I’ve had as an Administrator, I would not be surprised if every toxic poster who is allowed to over-stay doesn’t effectively chase off 5 or more other posters who aren’t jackasses and who do contribute value.
But we’ve seen some threads that started out being a discussion of the topic and turned into an argument over one poster’s opinion about the topic.
Yeah, we’ve been through that. The lone poster should not continue to defend their position against the onslaught of other posters lest they be banned from the thread. And some dopers have gone as far as suggesting suspending or even banning that defending poster. This whole concept is very unsettling to me, I don’t want to see things go that far. This is whole thing is just so gestapo-ish and wrong.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We don’t need this, things are going just fine without it.
I think if you can’t handle someone having a different opinion, you should leave the thread. If someone has a different interpretation than you on a topic, sure give it a fair shake. But if you sense they’re immovable, why don’t you try leaving it alone? It takes more than one person to derail a thread.
If the lone poster would defend their position with thing cites, statistics, articles, facts, well thought out arguments and full sentences this wouldn’t be an issue.
Okay, point taken there. I’ll let this drop. Still feel uncomfortable about this suggested precedent, though.
nm
Well, exactly. The mods don’t wear those jackboots for nothin.
never mind.
To Left Hand of Dorkness, not funny.
They just took the post out into the night and fog. Don’t ask questions.
This board is going to heck in one of those nazi baskets. 
Didn’t we also have a Handy rule, which prohibited said poster from posting in medical threads?
FWIW, I’m opposed to the idea too. It’s an unneeded remedy. Options are already in place to deal with threadshitting and off-topic rants and they seem to be working just fine. Plus, there’s the danger that a poster who’s moved on may receive a thread banning but not be aware of it, and then come back later after the thread has moved on, post again, and then get whammed.
All in all, I think it would just serve to gum up the works. The reason threads go wildly off topic or get threadshit now is largely because no one complains. I’m not aware of very many threads where posters ignore mod warnings, so as long as someone reports the offending posts and mods take the appropriate action, the problem is self-resolving.
To be honest, I think the proposed suggestion seems to be an attempt to deal with Diogenes (with apologies to the OP if not). Goodness knows he and I rarely see eye-to-eye on anything, but to me, if posters feel he is taking over a thread, all they need do is respond to each other and ignore him.
In short, I just don’t think we need to gum up the entire board and burden the mods with endless decision-making about what is threadshitting and what isn’t, and what is off-topic and what isn’t, and then issuing and keeping track of violations and dealing with snafus that develop when the offending poster either didn’t know he’d been thread-banned or dishonestly claims that he didn’t.
Plus it would create a hornets’ nest of junior-mod wannabes anxious to get the plug pulled on posters they don’t like or when the discussion is going in a different direction than they would like, and this would add to the mods’ burden as well.
Mods already have this power and, although it’s rarely used, I’ve definitely seen them do it from time to time, as SkipMagic confirms. Why close down a whole thread when the excision of one offending poster could restore it to health? If OTOH the fault lies with several posters then fine, the thread can legitimately be called a trainwreck and shut down.
When you’re only talking about opinion, then cites aren’t possible.
If you have stated your opinion, why the need to repeat and repeat? Once I have had my say, I pretty much move on. I might read the thread further, and I might occasionally post again (rarely) but in doing so it is to clarify something. To repost basically stating the same thing, well I guess I am not sure what that accomplishes?
Let’s say a thread is about bubble gum vs. hard candy (hey bear with me!)
So I say I like bubble gum, that is my opinion. Restating that multiple times adds nothing to the conversation. Now if someone posts saying bubble gum sucks and hard candy is where it is at. I could post again and state bubble gum is great but really does that add anything? Or alternatively I could repost as say something about ‘why’ I think bubble gum is better, for example it doesn’t add calories, or it keeps your breath fresh, or whatever. But at least then I have added and furthered the conversation…in my opinion. So in this instance even though it is just my opinion I am defending my position. Do you honestly not see the difference?