Disciplinary action for repeat threadjackers

[abefroman329]

It would appear that we've reached a point where the majority of threads that require locking or pruning, require locking or pruning by a small faction of repeat offenders. Given the absence of negative repercussions for taking threads off-course (other than the drop in the user's post count, which isn't so much a slap on the wrist as a soft summer breeze on the wrist), would it make sense to implement some? It wouldn't have to be severe (say, 10 posts that result in pruning or locking would earn a warning, with a very gradual slope up to a temporary ban), but it'd be better than no deterrent at all.

[hotdogPi]

It depends on how it's being taken off-course. Often, something on topic will be posted that can cause things to derail (I'm guilty of this one), such as a thread about new construction having a post about environmental impacts, which then morphs into a climate change debate. Then there are the "somewhat on topic but trying to make an unrelated point" and the total non sequiturs that are much more of a problem.

And then there's the undead stock market thread that keeps coming back.

And then there are the "I'm trying to get this thread locked" posts, such as one near the end of the DST thread and several of former dzlsabe's threads.

----

Looking at the most recent locked threads that aren't labeled "moved":

[I spent a lot of time compiling a list of all the problematic posts in controversial threads, but I decided to remove it, as it could have caused another derail.]

[oscar]

What exactly is "thread-jacking"? Many threads harmlessly mutate away from their original focus, such as the "Minimum flight distance" thread in Travel.

[MNHighwayMan]

I can't see implementing something like this as doing anything besides generating more controversy and complaints of "heavy-handed moderation."

[abefroman329]

What exactly is "thread-jacking"?

In this case, steering the conversation towards controversial topics in a non-controversial thread.

[abefroman329]

It depends on how it's being taken off-course. Often, something on topic will be posted that can cause things to derail (I'm guilty of this one), such as a thread about new construction having a post about environmental impacts, which then morphs into a climate change debate.

But that's the thing: It's entirely possible to discuss construction of a new road without foaming at the mouth about environmental concerns or local politicians or the legal system. The problem is the one individual going "well it would have been built already/would never have been built if it wasn't for those meddling Xs!"

[J N Winkler]

I think it would be difficult to devise a rule that would be clear, simple, and difficult to game.  In many of the problem threads it is intuitively simple to recognize the bad actor, but not to explain how what he or she is doing is causing agita.  And we have had a few threads where two people firmly committed to civility got thoroughly at loggerheads, resulting in page after page of polite but unproductive discussion--I was guilty of this in a thread dealing with exit numbering in New York.

[Alps]

We're definitely trending toward minimizing the number of warnings and bans we give. We know who the usual suspects are and sometimes we just have to remind them they're getting out of line. It adds flavor to the discussion.

[abefroman329]

I think it would be difficult to devise a rule that would be clear, simple, and difficult to game.  In many of the problem threads it is intuitively simple to recognize the bad actor, but not to explain how what he or she is doing is causing agita.  And we have had a few threads where two people firmly committed to civility got thoroughly at loggerheads, resulting in page after page of polite but unproductive discussion--I was guilty of this in a thread dealing with exit numbering in New York.

I think there's a clear difference between, say, "I support free lunch programs for kindergarteners"  and "Anyone who opposes free lunch programs for kindergarteners sucks ass."  And shoehorning either or both of the above into a thread about whether Northwest Airlines was better when they were known as Northwest Orient is wholly unnecessary.

[abefroman329]

We're definitely trending toward minimizing the number of warnings and bans we give. We know who the usual suspects are and sometimes we just have to remind them they're getting out of line.

And you think yelling "Stop, or I'll yell stop again!"  is an effective deterrent?

[Alps]

We're definitely trending toward minimizing the number of warnings and bans we give. We know who the usual suspects are and sometimes we just have to remind them they're getting out of line.

And you think yelling "Stop, or I'll yell stop again!"  is an effective deterrent?

They tend to calm down when we tell them they're out of line. We're not talking trolls here.

[Roadgeekteen]

I would rather not make moderation stricter. I think that threads going off topic isn't such a big deal and I think that locking and moving on is the best strategy.

[jeffandnicole]

I personally think people yelling for threads to be locked are worse than threads going off topic.

If someone wants to contribute to a topic that has been derailed, then just contribute. Often that'll bring the talk back to the subject. People yelling to get a topic locked or stating 'in before locked' aren't doing anything to help.

[abefroman329]

I personally think people yelling for threads to be locked are worse than threads going off topic.

Me too, I just use the "report to mod"  feature.

And I don't think this place is over-moderated at all, despite the incessant whining of some (well, one). Under-moderated fora are cesspools.

[Roadgeekteen]

Looks like the other similar thread was deleted.

[abefroman329]

Looks like the other similar thread was deleted.

What other similar thread?

[Roadgeekteen]

Looks like the other similar thread was deleted.

What other similar thread?

I don't remember what it was called, but I posted in it asking about NE2. It was up a little this morning.

[hotdogPi]

Looks like the other similar thread was deleted.

What other similar thread?

I don't remember what it was called, but I posted in it asking about NE2. It was up a little this morning.

It was this thread. The posts got deleted at my request.

[Roadgeekteen]

Looks like the other similar thread was deleted.

What other similar thread?

I don't remember what it was called, but I posted in it asking about NE2. It was up a little this morning.

It was this thread. The posts got deleted at my request.

Yeah, it quickly went downhill once other members were mentioned.

[hbelkins]

Conversation drift happens in real life. Why shouldn't it happen here?

[1995hoo]

Clearly we need a new smiley for use in these situations:

[Alps]

Looks like the other similar thread was deleted.

What other similar thread?

I don't remember what it was called, but I posted in it asking about NE2. It was up a little this morning.

It was this thread. The posts got deleted at my request.

Yeah, it quickly went downhill once other members were mentioned.

Protip: don't mention other members.

[Roadgeekteen]

Clearly we need a new smiley for use in these situations:

How did you get that smiley?

[1995hoo]

Clearly we need a new smiley for use in these situations:

How did you get that smiley?

It's on another forum of which I'm a member, so earlier today when I had my PC turned on I copied the image URL and then pasted it here wrapped with IMG tags.

[jakeroot]

The vast majority of "threadjackings" aren't even threadjacking. They're just meandering conversation that started off related to the original topic.

To quote a recent example, on the Arizona DDI thread, I brought up the signs at the interchange in question, which are to be replaced as part of the construction project. The signs are heavily based on British roundabout signs. As someone who is always saddened by the disappearance of an unusual sign, I felt the need to bring them up. All subsequent posts were about the signs in my post, and not the DDI itself. To someone who was just scrolling through, my post looks like a jacking of the original topic, as I made almost no mention of the new DDI. But, my post does have roots in the original topic: the signs wouldn't be going away if Arizona weren't modifying the interchange. All someone has to do is read backwards to find the source of the apparently-off-topic discussion.

If we are to define what is "off-topic" (which is the only way to acceptably moderate "threadjackings"), there needs to be a definition for "on-topic". As that is, realistically, impossible, I don't think the moderators need to do anything more than what they are doing now. Hell, is there even such a thing as "threadjacking"? I can't recall ever seeing a post that wasn't at least partly in response to something prior to it.