Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
18. A discussion of this question there would constitute a hijacking of the OP you linked to.
Sat Nov 5, 2016, 07:28 PM
Nov 2016

That OP is not about the SOP of DU's Religion Group, which there may have been had some confusion about.

I think that the confusion has been cleared up now.

It is better to be clear about the rules so as to avoid meta in threads, which tend to hijack OP's.

What happened, I think, is that there was dissatisfaction with the fact that the OP was left standing, and a desire to second guess the moderation process by raising the meta issues directly within the thread itself, instead of accepting or appealing the results.

When this happens due to a misunderstanding of the SOP, it is better to clear up the confusion directly, so that people understand the SOP and don't feel tempted to derail threads with meta when jury decisions don't go their way.

Addressing the SOP directly avoids many of the alerts in the first place, which is better, since then people won't become frustrated when frivolous alerts fail (even frivolous alerts made out of ignorance in good faith), and won't be tempted to hijack the threads with meta to get around the failure of frivolous alerts.










Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Of course it is. rug Nov 2016 #1
If you are for it, it isn't. n/t rzemanfl Nov 2016 #2
It sounds like a religious issue to me. - n/t Jim__ Nov 2016 #3
Do you have any specific instances in mind? eom guillaumeb Nov 2016 #4
The objections were raised in a thread about a mock election being canceled at an elementary school stone space Nov 2016 #5
I cannot see why a mock election being cancelled due to possible religious discrimination would not guillaumeb Nov 2016 #6
Well, this OP is meta Goblinmonger Nov 2016 #7
The objections are meta as well. And those objections could discourage discussion, if believed. stone space Nov 2016 #10
"I know you are but what am I?" Goblinmonger Nov 2016 #12
What is it that you want me to apeal? I'm not the one complaining. You are. stone space Nov 2016 #13
I have no idea what you are talking about. Goblinmonger Nov 2016 #16
Why would 3 posts by a "name removed" troll disturb me? stone space Nov 2016 #17
What are we talking about? Brettongarcia Nov 2016 #8
It is a mock presidential election shut down by an elementary school due to bullying. stone space Nov 2016 #9
When a post is removed, there is an appeals process Brettongarcia Nov 2016 #11
There was no post removed that I am aware of. stone space Nov 2016 #14
This post is confusing. Why start a second post on an old topic Brettongarcia Nov 2016 #15
A discussion of this question there would constitute a hijacking of the OP you linked to. stone space Nov 2016 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»question: is the bullying...»Reply #18