# Are Hijacks allowed? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 24, 2010, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224 "2010-01-24T13:25:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/1 "2010-01-24T13:25:21Z")
Over in the thread discussing proper use of Mod powers, **Scissorjack** tried to redirect conversation to a repeated complaint about moderators I have recently seen. > **["Proper" use of mod powers to steer a thread in GD?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=549122)** > > This thread is getting a bit off track, and I’d suggest that ATMB is probably a better place for us to discuss it, just in case the central question (such as it is) of the GD thread is still interesting to some. Anyways, my idea is that Marley23 did... **Scissorjack** said > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **TubaDiva** > > Frankly I would love to see more intellectual debate and less 'wrasslin, more reason and less rhetoric. I bet I’m not alone in that. > > You said that with a commendably straight face. Debate is not fostered when at every turn some jumped-up little chalk monitor pops up to say, “Hey, you have you have to talk about what say you can talk about.” Followed by: > [@](#): > > Did I misread the forum heading, or is it not Mundane **Pointless** stuff I must share? Look, I know **twicky-woo** is proud of her big girl mod panties and all, but could one of you guys who’s been around longer gently dissuade her from running out into the street to show everyone? She’s running the fluff forum, not presiding over the Nuremburg Trials. And of course then got himself a warning for failing to follow a moderator direction to not hijack the thread. So I am forced to respond in a different thread, so I opened this one. Thus, I think I answered my question (😃 ), but now get to the point. First, just because the forum is called “Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share”, that does not mean that the threads themselves do not have a direction, or a topic. They are not free-for-alls. Otherwise, as suggested elsewhere, we would just have one thread and be done with it. Second, **twickster** can keep right on waving her “big girl mod panties” around. I haven’t been reading MPSIMS, but every single instance I’ve seen here in ATMB complaining about her mod actions I have agreed with those actions. Third, MPSIMS might be the “fluff forum”, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t rules, or that following the rules is less important. Finally, if you don’t like a moderated board, there are plenty of other places you can go. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/2 "2010-01-24T15:35:52Z")
There’s a difference between going a bit off topic and completely hijacking a thread. But even the latter is sometimes allowed, if the hijack is well received by everyone involved. In Scissorjack’s case, I think it may have been more about the obvious name-calling than anything. Any attempt to actually hijack seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. And such attempted hijacks are often ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/3 "2010-01-24T17:46:36Z")
Agreed, BigT, it should be about the needless name calling. Any real talk between real people will wander and that forum ought to be just the place to have “pointless” stuff, so I do not think moderation of ideas is proper there at all. Remember the board is public and on the internet, if the owners do not want general discussions, make it a private invitation only board then. It is wrong for anyone to say just go elsewhere when the board is supposed to be a general place for the public to discuss things. As long as it is, the mods ought to be raked over the coals when they wreck a wanted discussion, period. Now if someone is just interrupting with spam, or cussing or something, then deal with that, fine. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/4 "2010-01-24T18:07:45Z")
The generalization about hijacks: it depends on the context. There can certainly be tangential comments, that would be permitted. The line between “tangential but relevant” and “hijack and not relevant” is a fuzzy one, that depends on context. So, in a conversation about how to stop my Siberian husky from peeing on the rug, discussion about pet neuroses and alpha-behaviors, would be possibly tangential, but certainly within the realm of discussion. Conversation about someone’s pet mynah bird saying obscene words would be a hijack, and reined in. Rained in. Reigned in. And, as others have said, even a thread about a pointless topic, one would like the conversation to stay on that pointless topic (pretty much.) ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/5 "2010-01-24T18:23:49Z")
Excellent post Dexter, agree with it too. Some mods here have claimed any discussion at all not in the narrowest meaning of the first post is just totally wrong. Many tangent discussions are shut down rudely with threats. They seem to think it is like a legal brief and ultra formal rules are needed where they are not wanted. Thank you for the clarification, and it is just what I would have said as well. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/6 "2010-01-24T19:01:04Z")
In Great Debates, I distinguish between “organic hijacks” and “deliberate hijacks.” An organic hijack arises from a point in the discussion. In a discussion about the results and ramifications of the U.S. Civil War, there is almost certainly going to be a digression while a few posters hammer out their views of whether the war was fought over States Rights or Slavery. Since the purpose of the war is going to have a bearing on the results of the war, I will tend to view that discussion as “organic” to the thread and permit it as long as it does not look to be overwhelming the original discussion point. A claim that the South was “just a bunch of traitors who deserved to be hung _en masse_ and their lands salted,” if it turned into a discussion and not ignored as nonsense or posturing, would be seen as a hijack regarding a hypothetical that did not occur and the participants would be told to take it elsewhere. ETA: a discussion about the theory of evolution that was interrupted by a poster repeatedly claiming that abiogenesis could not happen and that somehow that prevented life from evolving after life began who was shown repeatedly, that the two topics were different in nature would also be ruled a hijack and told to take it elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/7 "2010-01-24T21:01:48Z")
**BigT** said: > [@](#): > > There’s a difference between going a bit off topic and completely hijacking a thread. I agree, and have tried to explain that to others. > [@](#): > > In Scissorjack’s case, I think it may have been more about the obvious name-calling than anything. Any attempt to actually hijack seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. And such attempted hijacks are often ignored. The mod didn’t call **Scissorjack** out for insults (which probably should have), the mod called him out for hijacking the thread and told him to take it elsewhere. As for the “hijack falling on deaf ears”, I was all set to pursue it, just got there too late. That’s why this thread exists - I couldn’t pursue it in that thread. **Silverstreak Wonder** said: > [@](#): > > Agreed, BigT, it should be about the needless name calling. Any real talk between real people will wander and that forum ought to be just the place to have “pointless” stuff, so I do not think moderation of ideas is proper there at all. Nonsense. If I were to start a thread discussing my recent escapade trying to acquire a new digital TV (and I could, I really could), I would expect that thread to stay somewhat on the topic of buying TVs, or maybe discuss trying to buy things that are magically not in stock anywhere ('cause that was part of the escapade). I would not appreciate someone butting in with their story of going to the barbershop and getting a bad haircut, or finding out about the school lunch menu for Podunk Elementary, or getting a story about a rambunctious puppy who breaks furniture and pees on everything. Those things would be sufficiently off topic such that it would derail from my topic. Regardless of whether my original topic could be considered “pointless”, which it would because it has nothing to do with the columns, it isn’t a question needing a factual answer, there’s no debate, it’s not really heated enough to be a tirade (at the time I might have managed that, but not now), and there really isn’t a poll or opinion survey, and it isn’t a discussion of literature or media or cooking - I suppose one might conceivably call it “decorating” and thus shoe-horn it into Cafe Society, but really MPSIMS is where it belongs, not because it is _worth_less, but because it’s just me sharing an experience I had that someone else might find entertaining. Just because the forum is labeled for pointless stuff, doesn’t mean the threads themselves don’t have a topic, and don’t need to stay near that topic. > [@](#): > > Remember the board is public and on the internet, if the owners do not want general discussions, make it a private invitation only board then. It is wrong for anyone to say just go elsewhere when the board is supposed to be a general place for the public to discuss things. As long as it is, the mods ought to be raked over the coals when they wreck a wanted discussion, period. Bullshit, gibberish, hooey. Just because the board is open for people to become members, that does not mean anything goes. This board is a place that operates by this board’s rules. If you don’t like those rules, why are you still around? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/8 "2010-01-24T21:05:11Z")
**C K Dexter Haven** said: > [@](#): > > The generalization about hijacks: it depends on the context. There can certainly be tangential comments, that would be permitted. The line between “tangential but relevant” and “hijack and not relevant” is a fuzzy one, that depends on context. > > [snip] > > And, as others have said, even a thread about a pointless topic, one would like the conversation to stay on that pointless topic (pretty much.) **Silverstreak Wonder** said: > [@](#): > > Excellent post Dexter, agree with it too. Ha ha ha ha ha. That is exactly what you’ve been complaining about and I have been explaining to you. _Now_ you agree? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/9 "2010-01-25T03:19:15Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > The mod didn’t call **Scissorjack** out for insults (which probably should have), the mod called him out for hijacking the thread and told him to take it elsewhere. As for the “hijack falling on deaf ears”, I was all set to pursue it, just got there too late. That’s why this thread exists - I couldn’t pursue it in that thread. I was very unclear with that. I just meant that the hijack got more noticed because it was insulting. His first post, at least, wouldn’t have gotten any attention if it was better phrased. The other part is that, as of the warning, no one had really responded. And that it’s not unusual for failed hijacks to be ignored until they actually start derailing the thread. I think that might even be one of the metrics to determine whether something is a hijack or not. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/10 "2010-01-25T03:20:33Z")
I never did like New Coke. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/11 "2010-01-26T01:35:16Z")
There’s also a difference between a general question like “Are hijacks permitted?” and a specific case like “Was the mod correct in stopping this discussion.” ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/12 "2010-01-26T02:33:07Z")
> [@NoClueBoy](#): > > I never did like New Coke. What about Pepsi Throwback? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/13 "2010-01-27T05:31:25Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > There’s also a difference between a general question like “Are hijacks permitted?” and a specific case like “Was the mod correct in stopping this discussion.” Not really, in this case, as they are essentially intertwined. If the mod was wrong, there has to be a reason. There has to be an unstated rule they violated. A lot of the “rules” around here seem to be more implied than spelled out. (Not that this is a bad thing–it’s what happens in communities.) Therefore, analyzing the specific action becomes one of the best ways to figure out what the rules actually are. At least, that’s what I’m doing, figuring it out as I go alone. And I think that’s what you mods are doing, too. It’s not like the rules or “rules” have been exactly the same since 1999 (or whenever the AOL board started). ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/14 "2010-01-27T13:39:42Z")
Which hijack are you concerned about? The OP mentions two: the one in MPSIMS that involved me (and **Irishman** has a done a far more eloquent explanation than I ever could of why it’s possible to hijacks even an MPSIMS discussion, and why my actions in that case were appropriate), and the one in ATMB when **scissorjack** attempted to hijack a discussion of mod powers in Great Debates to include a criticism of my actions in MPSIMS. I haven’t seen anyone suggest in this thread or in that that that\* effort was anything but a hijack. So – what do you need clarification on, here? Hijacks are generally frowned upon at the Dope, and most people understand that and are okay with starting a new thread for a spin-off. Sometimes they do that without prompting, and sometimes a mod steps in and asks them to. Beyond that – like everything else, it’s often a judgment call (e.g., how far off topic can it be before it’s a hijack and not topic drift?). Since it’s often a judgment call, we’re not going to be able to provide a detailed and specific explanation of what constitutes a hijack. \*yeah, I could’ve rewritten that sentence – but how often do you get to use three “thats” in a row and have it be grammatically correct, if far from reader-friendly? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/15 "2010-01-27T14:29:53Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > \*yeah, I could’ve rewritten that sentence – but how often do you get to use three “thats” in a row and have it be grammatically correct, if far from reader-friendly? [Puts on Darth Vader helmet and exhales] Impressive. Most impressive. [Removes helmet] ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-hijacks-allowed/526224/16 "2010-01-27T16:54:47Z")
**C K Dexter Haven** said: > [@](#): > > There’s also a difference between a general question like “Are hijacks permitted?” and a specific case like “Was the mod correct in stopping this discussion.” Yes. The general case can often defend the specific (yes, the mod was right because hijacks aren’t allowed), but sometimes it comes down to interpretation (but that wasn’t a hijack, it was exploring an aspect of the topic). So each is a slightly different question. **BigT** said: > [@](#): > > Not really, in this case, as they are essentially intertwined. If the mod was wrong, there has to be a reason. There has to be an unstated rule they violated. Most arguments over moderation aren’t about not knowing the rules, but rather about interpretation of the rules. The poster thinks the mod’s interpretation isn’t right.