[QUESTION] Threadjacking

[Camicon]

Reploid locked the original thread, but I'm still not clear on a few matters.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=33335180#p33335180

"This assumes that addressing the ideology behind the hypothetical is threadjacking. Is that considered threadjacking now? Or is that only a standard being applied to Xero's threads, because they all take the form of a hypothetical premised on pragmatarianism (which, incidentally, is why all of Xero's threads are "derailed" in the same way, all being premised on the same idea). As Forsher noted, if we can't discuss the philosophy behind the assumptions then the conversation will devolve into "replies of the 'no you're wrong' kind". It seems less like a sterner application of the current rules than it does stricter interpretation.

And secondarily, as Gallo noted, are threads (or specifically Xero's threads?) now being so narrowly construed based on their title? Because Xero's Baby Name thread had nothing whatsoever to do with game theory, and it seems those two words in the title (which the OP itself did not touch on in any way) factored quite heavily in deciding what the topic of the thread was (and thus what would be threadjacking).

I've never seen the threadjacking rule applied in such a way before, possibly because there's never been a someone like Xero making threads like he does. I don't want to be confused about this going forward because don't intend to avoid Xero's threads in the future, but I'd rather like to avoid anymore warnings for threadjacking."

---

Senkaku also asked:

"Warn me for being uninvolved and butting in or whatever, but I think this boils down to- why is it NSG's fault that all of Xero's threads are about the same thing but thinly veiled as other things, and why is it threadjacking to call him out on it?"

[Audioslavia]

I'll quickly clear this up now.

There has been no change to our policy on threadjacking for a while. Context is considered when handling every case.

We do not consider 'addressing an ideology behind the hypothetical' as threadjacking. We consider dragging, and helping to drag, a conversation irretrievably away from it's main point as threadjacking. I'm sure that you did talk about hypothetical idelogies at some point, but you also contributed a lot to irretrievably drag the thread away from it's main point.

Were you the main culprit? No. Nobody is saying that. That's why you received a warning and the main perpetrator received a ban.

Are we blaming everyone in NSG for every threadjack? No, that would be ridiculous.

And secondarily, as Gallo noted, are threads (or specifically Xero's threads?) now being so narrowly construed based on their title? Because Xero's Baby Name thread had nothing whatsoever to do with game theory, and it seems those two words in the title (which the OP itself did not touch on in any way) factored quite heavily in deciding what the topic of the thread was (and thus what would be threadjacking).

No. The OP of the thread dictates the subject of the thread. You're right that the thread had nothing to do with game theory. The title of the thread didn't factor heavily in any decision made by moderation.

[Camicon]

Were you the main culprit? No. Nobody is saying that. That's why you received a warning and the main perpetrator received a ban.

I wasn't asking about myself, I was asking for clarification about a rule.

And secondarily, as Gallo noted, are threads (or specifically Xero's threads?) now being so narrowly construed based on their title? Because Xero's Baby Name thread had nothing whatsoever to do with game theory, and it seems those two words in the title (which the OP itself did not touch on in any way) factored quite heavily in deciding what the topic of the thread was (and thus what would be threadjacking).

No. The OP of the thread dictates the subject of the thread. You're right that the thread had nothing to do with game theory. The title of the thread didn't factor heavily in any decision made by moderation.

If the topic was not "baby names and the applicability of game theory", then what does Moderation consider the topic of that thread?

[Audioslavia]

The OP of the thread dictates the subject of the thread. You're right that the thread had nothing to do with game theory. The title of the thread didn't factor heavily in any decision made by moderation.

If the topic was not "baby names and the applicability of game theory", then what does Moderation consider the topic of that thread?

It's a discussion about a proposed gamification of the way of naming a child. Someone with a flawed idea of what constitutes 'game theory' might call it game theory, but that in itself would not cloud that person's judgement when they come down on a user for promoting a money-making scheme in a thread that is about an idea for baby-naming, not an actual under-construction for-profit website about it (which would be against the rules in the first place). Users actively prompting conversation about the latter would be punished - the instigator majorly, the rest minorly.

[Camicon]

If the topic was not "baby names and the applicability of game theory", then what does Moderation consider the topic of that thread?

It's a discussion about a proposed gamification of the way of naming a child. Someone with a flawed idea of what constitutes 'game theory' might call it game theory, but that in itself would not cloud that person's judgement when they come down on a user for promoting a money-making scheme in a thread that is about an idea for baby-naming, not an actual under-construction for-profit website about it (which would be against the rules in the first place). Users actively prompting conversation about the latter would be punished - the instigator majorly, the rest minorly.

So Moderation considers the topic of the thread 'gamification of the child naming process'.

It considers discussing the set of ideas that the "game" rules are based on (which, in all of Xero's threads, is "pragmatarianism") to be on-topic.

It considers discussing a website, created on the same set of ideas as the "game" in the OP, to be off-topic and thus a threadjack, because the creator used that website to break the commercialization rules.

Do I have this right?

[Audioslavia]

I consider the thread an eventually transparent attempt at promoting a for-profit website. I'd consider anyone helping to direct the conversation to said website, whether well-intentioned or not, to be breaking our rules about contributing to a threadjacking.

[Camicon]

I consider the thread an eventually transparent attempt at promoting a for-profit website. I'd consider anyone helping to direct the conversation to said website, whether well-intentioned or not, to be breaking our rules about contributing to a threadjacking.

So it was a threadjack because the website in question was for-profit.

Thanks for clarifying. I have no more questions.

[Katganistan]

I consider the thread an eventually transparent attempt at promoting a for-profit website. I'd consider anyone helping to direct the conversation to said website, whether well-intentioned or not, to be breaking our rules about contributing to a threadjacking.

So it was a threadjack because the website in question was for-profit.

Thanks for clarifying. I have no more questions.

No, it's a threadjack because it's not talking about baby names and gamification, thanks for playing.