DiscussMormonism.com

Yeah, nice.

UR 4 has been changed. Before the change, the rule read:

Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post.

As applied, the term "derail" did not include comments on a thread participant's motives.

The following two sentences have now been added to the rule:

This includes questioning the motives of, assigning ulterior motives to, or otherwise insulting the person who created the opening post. Start a new thread in the appropriate forum if you wish to do that.

The announcement of the change as well as additional information about how we approach "derails" can be found in this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=2839336#p2839336

Thanks and carry on.

maybe i am being too technical here, but the wording of the new rule states that derailing "...includes questioning the motives of, assigning ulterior motives to, or otherwise insulting the person who created the opening post."


Shades did clarify,

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:17 am

From now on, questioning a poster's motives for posting what he or she posted will count as a derailment and may be split into its own thread.

Would it be correct to assume that the derailment rule modification applies to questioning any poster's motives, and not just the OP's motives?

sorry to be so technical, but it does seem like the rule only refers to questioning the OP's motives, while the clarification seems to apply to all poster's motives.

thanks in advance to any mod for considering my nerdy question, if you choose to.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:29 pm

maybe i am being too technical here, but the wording of the new rule states that derailing "...includes questioning the motives of, assigning ulterior motives to, or otherwise insulting the person who created the opening post."


Shades did clarify,

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:17 am

From now on, questioning a poster's motives for posting what he or she posted will count as a derailment and may be split into its own thread.

Would it be correct to assume that the derailment rule modification applies to questioning any poster's motives, and not just the OP's motives?

sorry to be so technical, but it does seem like the rule only refers to questioning the OP's motives, while the clarification seems to apply to all poster's motives.

thanks in advance for considering my nerdy question, if you choose to.

I love nerdy questions! So, here's the new amended rule just for reference:

Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post. This includes questioning the motives of, assigning ulterior motives to, or otherwise insulting the person who created the opening post. Start a new thread in the appropriate forum if you wish to do that.

So, putting on my technical nerd hat: Because the second sentence begins with "includes," what follows does not function as a limitation on the definition of "derail." In my professional life, which consists mainly of doing exactly this exercise with insurance policies, we then would look at relevant context, including Shades' comments about the rule, as guide to interpreting it. In this case, I think Shades comment, at a very minimum, describes the spirit of the rule.

If my reading is correct, I think the rule itself could be made clearer by replacing "the person who created the opening post" with "any other thread participant." If it's not, Shades will let me know.

Thanks for asking.

Thanks for clarifying.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 18, 2023 9:21 pm

Thanks for clarifying.

My pleasure.

Would posting a picture of a raccoon or a whale be considered questioning a person's motive?

ceeboo wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:32 pm

Would posting a picture of a raccoon or a whale be considered questioning a person's motive?

Context is everything.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:47 pm

ceeboo wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:32 pm

Would posting a picture of a raccoon or a whale be considered questioning a person's motive?

Context is everything.

Word tuples of the type DBNP or GBNG exist outside of context.

They simply introduce words, but only shed light on whether one contains a double letter or a silent consonant.

Light, but not darkness.

Darkness, but not light.

The problem, long ago dubbed “The Tobin Effect,” applies to the author of the opening post. Questioning the motives, etc. of someone else within a thread is still O.K., more or less, because those happen much less often and rarely constitute “hostile” derailments. Ignorant ones, perhaps; short-sighted ones, maybe; but usually not strictly “hostile” ones per se.

Moderators retain the right to split off derailments anyway at their own judgment and discretion.