Rules and Moderator information

[Marcus]

Questioning the motives, etc. of someone else within a thread is still O.K., more or less, because those happen much less often and rarely constitute “hostile” derailments. Ignorant ones, perhaps; short-sighted ones, maybe; but usually not strictly “hostile” ones per se.

Dr. Shades, this does not seem logical at all that the rule only holds for the OP of a thread.

Let me explain my reasoning.You mentioned three specific posters in your outlining of the rule. So, if they participate in a thread but are NOT the OP, their motives CAN be questioned, because you assume others will usually hostilely question the motives of that poster, ONLY WHEN THEY ARE THE OP?

When they are not the OP, you assume that usually people will question the motives of those three in a non-hostile manner?

The fact that you mentioned those three specifically and how you see them treated, but are now defining the rule only for the one OP of a thread doesn't seem to address your issue, except in only one very small subgroup of threads.

Consider how many thousands of threads, literally, one of your three entered into but did not start, and obliterated them completely with their derailments. The motive-questioning in those threads frequently became hostile because of how common this technique became, and how much damage was done. Your new rule adds nothing to dealing with that situation.

Maybe your intent was to create a rule that looked good on paper ("be careful what you wish for!!") but in reality was pretty toothless, simply to appease the hordes. I can question your motives as you are not the OP, if i understand the new rule correctly.

[Moksha]

Would posting a picture of a raccoon or a whale be considered questioning a person's motive?

If the raccoon or the whale wore pastel-colored tutus there would be no need to question motives.

[Dr. Shades]

Consider how many thousands of threads, literally, one of your three entered into but did not start, and obliterated them completely with their derailments.

Right. And their derailments typically focused on assigning ulterior motives to, or questioning the motives of, the opening poster. Now their derailments can be split off.

I guess I don’t understand the nature of your complaint.

[Marcus]

Consider how many thousands of threads, literally, one of your three entered into but did not start, and obliterated them completely with their derailments.

Right. And their derailments typically focused on assigning ulterior motives to, or questioning the motives of, the opening poster.

I don't recall it that way.

Now their derailments can be split off.

I guess I don’t understand the nature of your complaint.

I'm sure mods have better ways to look at the data, but I did conduct a casual experiment, given what a reader can see.

In the non-Mormon fora, I searched for threads with "split" in the first post, and got 67 hits. On the first page of that 7 page search result, there were 8 threads that had been split for derailment attacks.

Every single one of the 8 threads (100% of page 1 mod splits) involved a derailment attack that was NOT made on the OP of the corresponding pre-split thread.

I know that's a quick and dirty sample, but seeing that all 8 of the first 8 splits I found were derailments not involving attacks on the thread OP gives me sufficient reason to disagree with your statement here:

"And their derailments typically focused on assigning ulterior motives to, or questioning the motives of, the opening poster."


So again, my argument, as supported by my quick sample, is this:

The fact that you mentioned those three specifically and how you see them treated, but are now defining the rule only for the one OP of a thread doesn't seem to address your issue, except in only one very small subgroup of threads...

which is why i find that limiting your UR4 to only derailments of the OP is not logical.

Gadianton pointed out additional issues in a different thread, I hope he doesn't mind if I repeat his post here in this thread:

I'm not a mod but I suspect you started out in a strong position, with your stylometric brother Fernando -- who doesn't have a lot of time right now -- making real change to a rule that now forbids questioning the motives of the OP poster, which from Shades' commentary may extend to other commentary about the OP poster if it implies a motive about the posting of the OP. Frankly, I'm not sure how close I am here.

Fernando's rule, as I will call it, opens the way for stylometric siblings of his to start new posts for the sake of trolling, and nobody is allowed to publicly suggest that it's trolling, or that the OP is a sock; at least I think this is right.

And so binger, mike, and Ceeboo have scored a point. I admit it was a sly move by Fernando. I'm not sure he outsmarted the mods, but the mods are very good people who will allow the perception of being outsmarted for the sake of a small chance of sincerity, they go the extra mile to give benefit to the doubt.

A sly play however, isn't a victory. Fernando's rule leaves open some serious challenges to trolling and disruption. From what I can tell, and I admit I'm not a mod, Fernando's rule can only seriously protect the OP to the extent that the OP originator doesn't go off topic themselves. And so take, for instance, my comments to you. I constrained my responses to your own derailing. If the OP permits the off topic by pursuing it themselves, or creates their own off-topic content then others are free to continue it.

The other problem an exploiter of Fernando's rule might have is tone trolling within their thread. Tone trolling not only (likely, per my understanding) opens up the thread for others to debate tone, but may make it harder to get rid of the off-topic commentary, because, in my opinion, it shows that the off-topic was welcomed -- perhaps baited -- just so the post originator can cry foul loudly and publicly and get the interlocutor penalized. To avoid crying to mods over every potential infraction as a way of continuing a troll agenda, it's my opinion that the mods prefer the report feature be silently used.

And so it's possible, the mods are playing 4d chess, even though I'm not sure in this case, because it seems to me that Fernando's rule will still require some discipline from the OP poster if they want to troll, and may result in a hollow victory where off-topic comments are silently removed with no vibrato from the originator nor extraneous commentary, and we're left with a thread that nobody really wants to discuss including the OP originator that floats its way to page 2 and beyond.

[Dr. Shades]

which is why i find that limiting your UR4 to only derailments of the OP is not logical.

No, derailments of the O.P. will now be split into their own threads IN ADDITION TO any other derailments that we’ve always split threads for.

[Res Ipsa]

which is why i find that limiting your UR4 to only derailments of the OP is not logical.

No, derailments of the O.P. will now be split into their own threads IN ADDITION TO any other derailments that we’ve always split threads for.

Oh, my bad. Got it.

[Marcus]

which is why i find that limiting your UR4 to only derailments of the OP is not logical.

No, derailments of the O.P. will now be split into their own threads IN ADDITION TO any other derailments that we’ve always split threads for.

Thanks for the clarification. The "be careful what you wish for" makes much more sense now. You got yourself a mini-jubilee! You clever board-owner, you.


(At least for the very small subset of threads that are started by the posters you mentioned in your explanation. A side benefit is other OPs are also protected from having their motives questioned, but only in threads they start. I think. )

[Res Ipsa]

No, derailments of the O.P. will now be split into their own threads IN ADDITION TO any other derailments that we’ve always split threads for.

Thanks for the clarification. The "be careful what you wish for" makes much more sense now. You got yourself a mini-jubilee! You clever board-owner, you.


(At least for the very small subset of threads that are started by the posters you mentioned in your explanation. A side benefit is other OPs are also protected from having their motives questioned, but only in threads they start. I think. )

I must need a third cup of coffee this morning. How is the rule change a mini-Jubilee?

[Dr. Shades]

(At least for the very small subset of threads that are started by the posters you mentioned in your explanation. A side benefit is other OPs are also protected from having their motives questioned, but only in threads they start. I think. )

You’re correct. IN REVERSE ORDER:

Regarding your second sentence, remember how MG 2.0 drove grindael off the board due to the former’s constant questioning of the latter’s supposed—but not proven—methodological assumptions, possible biases, etc. while never engaging the actual substance of what grindael posted? Well beforehand, such content was considered ON topic, annoying as it was, and wasn’t split. Thanks to Res Ipsa’s suggestion, such content is now considered OFF topic and will be counted as a derail, possibly hostile, and split into its own thread.

Regarding your first sentence, that’s correct, because MG 2.0 now gets the same protection that grindael should’ve gotten. That’s what I wanted people to be careful what they wished for, uh, about.

Nevertheless, hostile derailments can or will be split off just like they always were. The only difference is, as I explained, there’s now another category of post that will now be considered a hostile derailment. All previous categories remain in force, too.

[Marcus]

Regarding your first sentence, that’s correct, because MG 2.0 now gets the same protection that grindael should’ve gotten. That’s what I wanted people to be careful what they wished for, uh, about...

in my opinion, no one in our community would have had an issue, back then or now, with grindael and MG 2.0 getting the same protection, the protection all OPs get now.

When you warn people that fairness is what they will get, as though that were something to "be careful... wish[ing] for," I think you underestimate the sense of fairness our community has.

Thank you for your further explanation, it wasn't necessary but it is very much appreciated.

May our dear friend rest in peace.