NationStates Jolt Archive

I was very clear on what the thread was for, and I even warned people like this in the OP.


I dont need this thread turning into a flame fest or a discussion on the Mormon Church's role in Proposition 8. We have a thread for that already. If you could delete thist post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14181389&postcount=67 I would be much obliged.

Give it a rest people and for the whole bigotry (yes bigotry) against the Mormon church, pretty narrow. What's next are you going to around gathering all the people who voted yes on Prop 8 and beat them too? And honestly you'll never be able to boycott every business owned or stocks shared by them. And well you seem to be blisfully ignoring whoever proposed it be on the ballot in the first place.



Thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=571686

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14182134&postcount=107

so, would I be guilty of Thread jacking since I am discussing the validity of one reason why people should be protesting the LDS church?

The conversation starts with post 94.

and if I am guilty of threadjacking, would KoL be guilty of using mods as a weapon with his post I posted?

Personally, I would say no for both, but I am rather curious to what the mods think and feel.

If discussing why this is a stupid idea is threadjacking I did too.

I'm not a mod, but I don't think it's a threadjack either. The discussion about the Mormon church's role in Prop 8 is germane to your discussion.

Comments that disagree with yours do not a threadjack make. That's part of the deal when you post in General.

KoL, I do not think my fellow mods would be pleased if I committed us to spending our time weeding your garden.

You must expect that, if you write a thread saying "organise now!" or "organise against this lot!" people will want to ask "Why? And why them?"

I can see that you have tried to preclude such comments by pointing out that other threads already exist to discuss these points.

I would suggest (and these are only suggestions) that you:


rejig your intro post to make totally, absolutely, incontrovertibly clear that the subject for debate in this particular thread is not why organise, but how -- eg, Is this a good way to organise? Should we try this instead? What other ways can you think of? You could also update it with 'suggestions so far include:'.

give helpful links to other existing threads and categorise them -- eg, "For discussion of 'Why the Mormons?' go here; for discussion of other aspects of the vote on Prop 8, go here; (and so on).


This will probably not stop all comment posts, and you can't reasonably expect it to, but it should help keep it on the part of the topic you have chosen.

Remember, though, that General is a discussion and debate forum. As you know, thread starters don't have thread ownership. Of course, like any other player, you have the right to notify mods that you believe a poster's off-topic (so no, JuNii, I don't think it's mods-as-weapons this time).

However, when we're asked to rule on whether something is off-topic, we can only go to the original post and consider what topic it proposes. That's why it's not good etiquette to change a first post -- it can look as if you're trying retrospectively to get other posters into trouble.

If you do it now, you'll be doing it publicly and posters who entered the thread before you changed it won't get yelled at. (If you do, please put a note in the OP saying something like "I changed this after post No xxx", too.)*

*EDIT: Sorry, that won't work, because people have different settings for viewing theads. You'd have to link to the first post after you changed it, or something like that.