Thread derailment! Sound the alarms! Danger!

Post Reply New Topic

Derailing a thread seems to involve more than just introducing a side-subject and then returning to the main subject.  It seems to involve introducing an unrelated or inflammatory subject that has nothing to do with the original subject, and then repeatedly attacking others who criticize the intrusive subject until the thread is no longer about the original subject, but the inflammatory one.

It is a form of 'Trolling'.

Some of those things have a direct bearing on Alex Jones and how he should be viewed, specifically the question of whether or not he's being treated fairly in relation to other media figures who have caused harms through their lies. What the derailment accusations have been doing is attempting to straight jacket the discussion into a very narrow "Alex Jones Bad!" hate fest, which is both boring and misses substantial issues related to Alex Jones, including the ethics of paying attention to him in the first place.

No, what the derailment accusations have been doing is trying to keep the discussion on-topic, and not veer off into the evils that other people have done.  Sadly for Mr. Jones, this results in greater illumination and focus on on the evils he has committed, and simply because he seems to have done so little good for anyone except himself.

But that is a topic for the "Alex Jones" thread, and not this one, right?

I agree with this. It's OK to go off-topic a little if it can't be helped.
But when there's a conversation going on that's completely nothing to do with the subject the OP has required, it can get really annoying. Like one time I created a thread before I went to bed, then the next morning I saw that there were like 10 replies, so I thought "oh good, some responses and people are interested in my thoughts/questions/feelings/whatever". Only to open the page and discover that the first couple of replies were to do with the thread subject while the rest were completely off-topic. So I had to alert people to please stay on topic and to have the separate discussion elsewhere.

Not against the OP by the way, as his situation was different.

You'll notice that the full title of that thread is "Alex Jones:Hero, Anti Hero, or Villain?", and that the the OP of that thread started it with a qualified defense of Alex Jones. That is strong evidence that the topic of the thread is not simply Alex Jones the person but also how he is viewed and judged, which opens up the topic to how other people who tell harmful lies are viewed and judged, among other things.

Now, if you want to start your own Jones bashing thread with a narrower focus nothing is stopping you, I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be a thread in News about the defamation verdict, for example.

Last edited by Dox47 on 08 Aug 2022, 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Regarding litigating this in public, while I'm generally in favor of privately discussing issues with a mod, there are times when that isn't really an option, such as when the primary mod is not only participating in the thread under discussion on a particular side, but is actively taking sides under the mod flag, as occurred in that thread. Given that we mere members have no recourse, with mods refusing to ever second guess each other and Alex out of the picture entirely, raising the issue publicly is the only means of bringing pressure and attention available to us, an unfortunate state of affairs, but true as long as I've been a member here.

Then start a new one, instead of jacking this one.

I'm not hijacking anything, as I've stayed well within the original topic of the thread. If anything, it's you who is attempting the hijack here, insisting that a thread created to discuss whether Alex Jones is a good or bad guy be limited to posts supporting what you think is the correct opinion, rather than creating your own thread arguing for that position. Again, there is a trial verdict sized hole in the News forum if you're looking for a home for a more limited discussion of Jones, rather than trying to take over a broader discussion about him and how he's viewed.

You need not tell me what to do, as I am already doing what needs to be done.

But this thread is not about me, right?

But that's not what happened - I wasn't "actively taking sides".
I acted to remove what were reported as attacks and, on viewing the reported content I agreed and removed those posts along with, as is common, those quoting or commenting on them.
I then left this note: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=402525&start=240#p9103591

Prior to that I'd made a single post on Alex Jones, commenting as a member, and shortly before that I posted a note about remaining on topic, again as a result of reports. Once again posts were removed and a notice posted: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=402525&start=192#p9079129

On Jan 15 I responded to a good-humored post made by VegetableMan and in the process, reminded posters to stay on topic - again as a result of receiving reports. In this instance I removed no posts for the reasons given (and naively believed the thread would come to order).
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=402525&start=160#p8953686
(BTW, the post quote depth was adjusted to five posts some time ago)

As near as I can tell I made no other posts there.

Can a single post vs. three moderator posts made to a thread started in December 2021 be realistically called "participation"? And even then, I'm not rendered incapable as a moderator of seeing and acting on reported attacks or off-topic content.


But here's a general question for anyone: define off-topic in such a way that it can be applied to any threads.

How about the one you deleted, where you used the mod flag for the entire post making passive aggressive comments about how whenever Alex Jones came up people would virtue signal about how they don't listen to him? I responded to it, but that was also conveniently deleted. I didn't think I had to take screen shots here, and lucky for you the internet archive missed that day with a snapshot, but I know I wasn't the only person to see it. I won't make that mistake again in the future, every mod interaction is getting screen capped from now on.

Remind me, which one of us keeps running to the mods in order to get them to make other people do what we want?

It wasn't just about Alex Jones - it was about how someone inevitably posts to these heated things to say how they're not affected by {topic or the current sub-argument} and in the process imply that those who are are somehow at fault for doing so.
I'd also call such an intervention off-topic, but whether it's acted on because of that depends on many factors - not least of which is a reliably workable definition of "off-topic".

I removed my post because it, and the posts it referenced, were superseded by later reports/events resulting in the removal of other material. Yet you want to turn this into something bigger than it is by picking on just one post removal?
You know, sometimes posts like these are removed because... they're no longer relevant - and not because there are dark forces at work on "other" motives trying to cover things up.

And taking screenshots? You wanna go all quis custodiet ipsos custodes on moderator activity?
I don't care. Knock yourself out. But remember, you're not privy to the content of reports and/or related private conversations. Or indeed moderator activity with those who have been falsely labeled as "protected".

Just to add - while writing this post the following has been reported as an attack, and not by Fnord - as with most of the other reports you imagine you know not only who sent them, but why they sent them.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=407898&p=9105613#p9105655

How is this not an attack?

Because it's obviously and clearly not an attack? Aside from it being true, as Fnord is a very frequent poster in the mod attention thread aside from whatever he reports privately, there is no implication of negativity, just the observation that Fnord frequently tries to get threads shut down, which again is not only true but provably true via observation of his posts and the mod attention thread. Are you going to prove me right about the uneven applications of the rules by even further defining down what constitutes an "attack"?

Which is pertinent to your function as a moderator how? I wouldn't even disagree that the "why do you even care about this topic?" posts are frequent and annoying, but that wasn't what was going on there, I was pointing out that the fixation on Jones by certain posters was more extreme than that of many of his fans, and possibly counterproductive in opposing Jones, as it feeds him additional attention and possibly drives people to search him out and potentially get ensnared by him. It would of course be easier to demonstrate this if the pertinent posts had not been hastily deleted, along with the offending mod post that was much more aggressive than you're admitting to.



That's part of the problem, isn't it? Like I mentioned earlier, I'd say it's different in personal areas such as the Haven and Member Only were members are frequently talking about themselves or issues specific to them, vs News and PPR, which are discussion forums where more freewheeling debate is to be expected. What I've seen happen over and over is certain people use the "off topic" accusation to derail lines of inquiry that they don't want to respond to, even when simply ignoring the post in question would be much simpler and easier. I would suggest that for those forums, the standard should be closer to "out of left field" than "slightly different approach to the topic", so a post injecting say ancient aliens into a discussion about campaign finance law would be fair game for removal, but posts to the effect of "hey, have you tried coming at this from a different angle?" would be explicitly permitted. Aside from fostering more wide ranging debate, this would also reduce demands on the mod team, as posters wouldn't bicker over what is and is not "off topic" with a clear standard in force.



You were startlingly unprofessional and used the mod flag to launch veiled attacks on posters in a thread you had been participating in, I don't need to invoke mysterious motives to be suspicious about that post disappearing. In fact, if I understand how your tools actually work, you should have a copy of the removed post, which if it were so innocuous you should have no problem reposting here, right? Prove how ridiculous I'm being by posting the evidence.



"Falsely", lol. I'm not going to name names in public, but you tolerate a level of racism, sexism, and personal attacks from certain posters that would never be allowed to fly with us disfavored folks, who get the rules reinterpreted on the fly and retroactively applied to us, such as pointing out an obvious obsession being deemed a personal attack, just to use one recent example. Not that screenshots will actually do anything, as I've observed before the rules are what you say they are and you're effectively unaccountable, but I can at least prove it when you're lying in the future.



Oh, so you're telling me it was the evening royalty this time? Figures.

It is clearly an attack. Someone else beat me to reporting it.If I have ever tried to get a thread shut down, it is because it has been turned into a flame-war.Are you going to continue to attack members and moderators alike?