[R] Threadjacking and All X are Y in CCD Embassy

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The Confederation of Corrupt Dictators' Embassy thread in Gameplay seems to be continuing further into off-topic discussion about what is and is not fascism:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36664372&sid=934615aa4288be33ddf08c57dfb4c7bf#p36664372
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36666412#p36666412

There also is a post that seems not really germane to the issue of CCD and which, to my mind, could be "all x are y" in relation to transpeople:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36666448#p36666448

There has already been an indication by Sedge that the fascism topic (at least in the way it is being discussed) is not appropriate to the Gameplay forum:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36663321#p36663321

[Sedgistan]

Thanks - addressed.

[Prydania]

What do you call it when you're not calling for a second opinion but at the same time you have a grievance with the way the warning was handled?
If you want to flag me for continuing off-topic discussion in the manner that I did- even if the extent of my off-topic-ness was to provide a list of links, then ok. Fair enough. I accept that.

My problem with this, however, comes from the way Sedgistan chose to admonish me.
First, they link a post of mine from January 2019 where I took a one day ban for insisting the CCD was a Nazi region in a SC proposal thread that was aimed at furthering CCD interests. And in fact that was very much on my mind when someone told me I had gotten a warning in the CCD embassy thread. Why wouldn't it be? I was there. I got it Thing is...I was there. Posting a link to it- when the other party who Sedgistan admitted played a larger role in the threadjacking- was uncalled for. Any reason why Sedgistan didn't drag TURTLESHROOM II's past indiscretions through the mud?

Secondly, Sedgistan feels the need to inform me (and indeed everyone else) that I was punished for this behaviour "not too long ago."
I would argue over a year- with no incidents of note between then and now- is not so recent and so egregious as to warrant a moderator pulling out the "you were just talked to about this" card.

If Sedgistan felt my list of links to broadly available information to condemn actual racist ideologies warranted a warning, again, fine. I accept that. I would just ask Sedgistan that they stand by their decision and go "hey you went off topic when I asked everyone not to, here's a warning."
Dragging up a past incident over a year ago in a public forum to go tut-tut while acknowledging I wasn't nearly on the level as the other guy who got a warning seems a tad overboard for the crime in question.

[Sedgistan]

Your single post wouldn't normally warrant a warning (as with Lyrical International Brigade); I highlighted that previous warning as it was a virtually identical circumstance that you'd been called out for previously, and to explain why the punishment was bumped up from an unofficial to official warning. Your clean record in-between was taken into account - Audioslavia had given you a 1 day ban previously - punishments usually escalate, whereas I went with the lesser punishment of a warning.

Turtleshroom's record didn't need citing as his threadjacking was sufficient to warrant a warning without reference to that.

If you're still not happy, I'd suggest asking for a second opinion - you've got the right to that.

[Prydania]

Your single post wouldn't normally warrant a warning (as with Lyrical International Brigade); I highlighted that previous warning as it was a virtually identical circumstance that you'd been called out for previously, and to explain why the punishment was bumped up from an unofficial to official warning. Your clean record in-between was taken into account - Audioslavia had given you a 1 day ban previously - punishments usually escalate, whereas I went with the lesser punishment of a warning.

Turtleshroom's record didn't need citing as his threadjacking was sufficient to warrant a warning without reference to that.

If you're still not happy, I'd suggest asking for a second opinion - you've got the right to that.

As I said, I don't want a look at a second opinion. I went off-topic, and I did it after you (a mod) specifically asked people not to. I shouldn't have made that portion of that post. I don't want it to come off like I'm disputing that.

My issue was with the way something from over a year ago was referenced in the official warning. It rubbed me the wrong way, but your explanation for why it was included makes me feel a lot better about it. Thank you for your time Sedgistan, it's appreciated

leaves Oreos

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Since this thread addresses me, I assume that I can mount my defense. I seek a second opinion.

I would like to point out that each of the posts I was accused of hijacking were not my initiative. In every post cited, I was replying to someone else. I didn't start the diversion. I was simply replying to what I saw.

Does it not require deliberate intent, or being the originating source, to be accused of hijacking a thread? I am curious as to why I received a Warning. Please give me a deeper explanation on what is hijacking and how that process is decided. What "past record" of hijacking do I have?

Also, was I previously asked not to go off-topic? I didn't see any warning about it from my end. If that's the case, negate this post, as it was wholly my fault.

Thank you.

[Frisbeeteria]

I was simply replying to what I saw.

By doing so you were continuing the threadjack. Thus, the warning.

Does it not require deliberate intent, or being the originating source, to be accused of hijacking a thread?

It does not.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

I was simply replying to what I saw.

By doing so you were continuing [hijacking]. Thus, the warning.

Does it not require deliberate intent, or being the originating source, to be accused of hijacking a thread?

It does not.

Understood. Thank you for informing me. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused.