Should Kath Be Allowed To Continue As Moderator?

[Speaker to Animals]

The hockey threads are annoying as fuck, but there are principles to stand for here.

[Speaker to Animals]

Also.. and what the actual fuck? She edited clubgop's posts mocking Monty as a child molester but a few years ago she accused me of supporting child rape when I pointed out the young girl in the story she tried to use as some example, in fact, was a rape hoaxer.

This is democrat-level hypocrisy, people. Fucking hell.

[Heraclius]

As someone who is more of a reader than a poster, I'd say that hockey is probably one of the most egregious topics when it comes to derailing threads. It's due to the quantity of posts that will happen (trump one had just about 7 full pages of nothing but hockey talk once), how easy it seems to shoehorn it into a conversation (all it takes is one person making a sports analogy), and the fact that it's impossible to re-rail the discussion until Capps and Smitty go to bed. You can try to make a political post but it will be ignored and buried under an extra 2 pages of hockey.

Granted, there are several people that have their own triggers and moments where they would go off-topic whether to flame, meme, or have a topic about something unrelated. Those just don't really have the trifecta that happens with the hockey discussions. I wouldn't mind having some rule that softly enforces on-topic discussion. It can be sort of compared to a "is it porn or art?" situation where off-topic posts that stop after a bit or are somewhat related would be acceptable, but having to skip 100+ posts isn't. Some of the hockey discussions are practically threads within threads and that can get pretty ridiculous.

But having a soft-rule like that will 100% depend on whether you trust the moderator(s) to reasonably enforce the rule and I imagine that's not going to happen here.

[StCapps]

As someone who is more of a reader than a poster, I'd say that hockey is probably one of the most egregious topics when it comes to derailing threads. It's due to the quantity of posts that will happen (trump one had just about 7 full pages of nothing but hockey talk once), how easy it seems to shoehorn it into a conversation (all it takes is one person making a sports analogy), and the fact that it's impossible to re-rail the discussion until Capps and Smitty go to bed. You can try to make a political post but it will be ignored and buried under an extra 2 pages of hockey.

Lies. If you make an on topic post worth responding to, neither me or Smitty will ignore it, we just get right back to talking about hockey right afterward, because there is no quality on-topic conversation continuing to be discussed, until someone posts something else on topic. We're just killing time shooting the shit. If your post goes ignored, in that situation, it's probably because the post isn't as good as you thought it was.

Granted, there are several people that have their own triggers and moments where they would go off-topic whether to flame, meme, or have a topic about something unrelated. Those just don't really have the trifecta that happens with the hockey discussions. I wouldn't mind having some rule that softly enforces on-topic discussion. It can be sort of compared to a "is it porn or art?" situation where off-topic posts that stop after a bit or are somewhat related would be acceptable, but having to skip 100+ posts isn't. Some of the hockey discussions are practically threads within threads and that can get pretty ridiculous.

If there was a consistent no off-topic discussion rule, we'd follow it, but there isn't, so we don't.

But having a soft-rule like that will 100% depend on whether you trust the moderator(s) to reasonably enforce the rule and I imagine that's not going to happen here.

That's for sure, Kath selectively enforces rules made up on her whims, she can't be trusted to enforce such a rule consistently, she has refused to every time we suggest as much, there is no getting through to her.

[Heraclius]

Lies. If you make an on topic post worth responding to, neither me or Smitty will ignore it, we just get right back to talking about hockey right afterward, because there is no quality on-topic conversation continuing to be discussed, until you respond. If your post goes ignored, in that situation, it's probably because the post isn't as good as you thought it was.

Well the problem is that it kind of creates a feedback loop. The people that will be reading the thread the next day will be skipping over the hockey talk looking for where it stops. The poster that posts their on-topic response will be ignored not only by you two but by the rest of the forum because no one wants to comb through 139 hockey posts to find the 1 on-topic post. This then causes people, as a future reference, to just stop posting when they see the signs of a hockey derail coming up because they know there is no point in posting until it's over if they plan on having their post seen by others. But this is just how I operate. Maybe some other people do comb through the hockey stuff and so this doesn't really apply to them.

If there was a consistent no off-topic discussion rule, we'd follow it, but there isn't, so we don't.

I agree that having a single thread having an off-topic rule seems pretty odd. I would rather have some form of decorum for threads, though.

[StCapps]

Lies. If you make an on topic post worth responding to, neither me or Smitty will ignore it, we just get right back to talking about hockey right afterward, because there is no quality on-topic conversation continuing to be discussed, until you respond. If your post goes ignored, in that situation, it's probably because the post isn't as good as you thought it was.

Well the problem is that it kind of creates a feedback loop. The people that will be reading the thread the next day will be skipping over the hockey talk looking for where it stops. The poster that posts their on-topic response will be ignored not only by you two but by the rest of the forum because no one wants to comb through 139 hockey posts to find the 1 on-topic post. This then causes people, as a future reference, to just stop posting when they see the signs of a hockey derail coming up because they know there is no point in posting until it's over if they plan on having their post seen by others. But this is just how I operate. Maybe some other people do comb through the hockey stuff and so this doesn't really apply to them.

If y'all had something interesting to say, we'd stop sooner, quit censoring yourselves because you are afraid you can't cut through hockey talk even if you do, that's your problem, not ours.

Your perception about once a thread is derailed with hockey talk, you can't stop us, that's only if you post on-topic material that doesn't interest us or anyone else posting at that time. If you do, we'll stop and then once the on topic conversation dies down, go back to talking hockey, or we'll talk both topics at the same time, because we can walk and chew gum at the same time, it doesn't bother us.
/shrugs

But that was before Kath declared war on hockey talk, now you'll have to wait until the Olympics are over to get an on topic word in edge wise, especially in any Olympics thread, but Kath needs to be taught a lesson, and we aren't going to lose this war, bet that. Self fulfilling prophecy for the fail.

[Heraclius]

My perception is that it shouldn't be a poster's nor reader's burden to cut through off-topic discussions.

I mean it seems like most people would be amendable to an enforcement of some off-topic rule. That way hockey talk always happens in some other thread and if a post in another thread gets to be seen by others. If you don't think it's worthwhile, then you can ignore it and just keep going in the hockey thread. Everybody wins.

[StCapps]

My perception is that it shouldn't be a poster's nor reader's burden to cut through off-topic discussions.

Well it is, so suck it up. Wishful thinking does not make it so.

I mean it seems like most people would be amendable to an enforcement of some off-topic rule. That way hockey talk always happens in some other thread and if a post in another thread gets to be seen by others. If you don't think it's worthwhile, then you can ignore it and just keep going in the hockey thread. Everybody wins.

Me and Smitty aren't here to cater to the whims of non-hockey fans, you want to re-rail the thread, there was nothing stopping y'all, except your defeatist attitudes and uninteresting posts. You want a consistently enforced no off-topic rule, fine by us, it's the moderator who refuses to enforce that standard, in favor of selective enforcement against people she's annoyed with.

[Heraclius]

I wish you luck in your terrorist endeavors.

Or freedom fighter. Whatever.

[StCapps]

I wish you luck in your terrorist endeavors.

Or freedom fighter. Whatever.

We won't need it, Kath fucked up, and she's going to reap the whirlwind of her ridiculous overreaction to two Olympic threads getting derailed by hockey talk, which only occasionally happened to be off topic this time around. She only threatens to censor us if we are posting hockey talk in thread she likes though, if it isn't a thread she cares that much about, there will be no enforcement of the rule, fuck your thread, she only cares about hers.

It's all about Kath's feelz, fuck the rest of the forum, unless it's montegriffo bitching to her about being offended, then she turns full on appeasement monkey.