Hijacking

What are you talking about?

And, in my official capacity, I’ll argue that the opinions of the SOTU address and data regarding it are out of bounds for this thread. Let’s not get - ahem - sidetracked.

What are you on about? Aspenglow? Bone said that this thread is about hijacks; and that’s 100% what Aspenglow posted about. If you meant another poster, vagueposting isn’t your friend.

n/m just saw the mod note

Maybe my post wasn’t clear. My fault, I’m sure.

Here’s the timeline of events:

Aspenglow makes an accusation of hijacking here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20765928&postcount=389

I started this thread.

Bone issues a moderator instruction not to relitigate underlying issues here:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20767887&postcount=28

Three posts later, Aspenglow attempts to relitigate the underlying issue.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20768122&postcount=31

I think it’s rather obvious that Bone’s note referred to relitigating the underlying issue referred to the healthcare debate, not the issue of hijacking.

Aspenglow’s post referred not to the healthcare issue, but to the subject of hijacking, and so was on point for this thread.

If Aspenglow’s post was in violation of Bone’s note, then your subsequent posts discussing hijacking are also in violation of it.

The reasons are at least 3 fold.

[ol]
[li]I’m not a moderator of ATMB. From time to time, the entire staff will step out of our lanes when the need arises, but typically we avoid doing so if possible.[/li][li]My post in #28 was not in my capacity as a moderator. I and all the staff will offset those posts with tags, etc. to clearly indicate where we are moderating. Beyond that we’re just regular posters.[/li][li]You’re assessment that #31 was relitigating one of the underlying catalysts for this thread doesn’t seem on point. It was specifically about hijacking - what this thread is about, not the unrelated issues about prescriptions, etc.[/li][/ol]

The primary reason we recommend against making such accusations is that on one end of the spectrum they tend to derail threads - they aren’t productive in discussion so we eschew them, and on the other end of the spectrum they tend to be done in a way that’s violative of other rules against insults. But if a person does merely say that they find something insulting, that’s not necessarily Jr. modding. I think you misunderstand what Jr. Modding is. We didtalk about it last March. Here is what I said at the time:

That sounds right to me.

While we all aspire to be our best selves, I and others are but one person as a whole. We bring the entirety of our person into the role. It would be quite silly to deny that we each have our own experiences we draw from. I’m biased, but I think we’re quite successful in being as objective as possible. I will say that I always appreciate feedback. Evidence based feedback even more so.

Heh. Part of the lore of the message board precedes D’Anconia. There was one guy known as The Poster Who Must Not Be Named, who would derail threads on his pet topic, circumspection. Well, actually it wasn’t circumspection, but for years we would circle around this topic (ha!) in the hopes of dodging his presumably daily google searches. I assumed there were sock issues.

Good times.

Ok, I’m the OP of the healthcare thread. I am sorry for using the word “hijack” in that thread. But within the first 10 posts (in which I was hoping to get debate/discussion going over the Amazon/Chase/Warren Buffet healthcare announcement), it appeared to me that you were not going anywhere near the topic I was asking about. You seemed to be trying to “get” me somehow, demanding that I “back up” what’s in my insurance policy. Didn’t seem especially on-topic.

Also, you continue to say, even in this thread, that I was unwilling or unable to back up my flu shot claim, yet I did. My original claim was: “I am on a silver plan, which isn’t cheap, and it still took an afternoon of calling pharmacies to find someone that would cover my family’s flu shot. That’s insane. An afternoon calling my insurance company, calling pharmacies, etc. Or I could shell out $130 for my family to get shots.”

I’ve now underlined the part you should pay attention to. You, for whatever reason, decided to tell me that insurers are required to cover flu shots. I never said mine didn’t. In fact, right after you posted your ACA link, I came back into the thread, humored your continued digression, and explained HOW my insurance company COVERED MY FLU SHOT. I then asked you to stop hijacking the thread, but now I realize I was wrong. Instead, to avoid the appearance of junior modding, I should have requested you pretty please try to veer back onto the actual topic I was hoping to have discussed, and not continue to get hung up on my specific insurance coverage or continually ask for me to “back it up.”

But again, I apologize for using the word “hijack.” I honestly didn’t realize it carried with it anything “official.” I was simply trying to steer the thread back on topic, especially since the thread was barely two hours old by the time you were seemingly making attempts to derail it by explaining to me an insurance policy you know nothing about and making demands that I…I’m not sure what. Did you want me to connect you with a representative from my insurance company so he or she could tell you that they only cover certain flu shots but not others? Is that how you wanted me to “back it up?” Sorry, not gonna happen for many reasons, the least of which is that it had nothing to do with the OP I had just posted.

The word itself doesn’t carry anything official with it as long as it’s part of a request and not a demand or an accusation of rule-breaking.

Hijack may be a specific term that moderators enforce rules about but it’s also just common internet slang for a tangential change of subject from the OP. Not all of those are considered rules violations.

Happy, your use of the word ‘hijack’ violates no rules in my book. It was, indeed, a hijack and a request to get the thread back on track isn’t out of order.

But it’s always good to report such if you have real concerns. Let us review things and intervene if we feel it’s necessary.

This reminds me of penalties in an NFL game. Both teams constantly think the other team should be getting them. Thing is, it is the officials who make the calls, and that’s all that matters. The moderators here are the officials here. If they don’t flag something, that’s good enough for me and, if they do, I respect the call. That makes life here simple, at least for me.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now at the risk of “hijacking” this thread, and I hope I’ll be permitted this slight digression as D’Anconia has directly accused me of a few things upthread: D’Anconia, you accused me of being “uninformed,” “misunderstanding something,” making a claim that I never did, and either being “unwilling or unable to back [my claim] up.” I would love for you to come back and explain *how *I was uninformed, *what *I misunderstood, *where *I said that my insurance company DIDN’T cover flu shots, explain *how *I am unwilling or unable to back up what I said, or explain to me how specifically you would have me “back up” what my insurance policy covers. For shits and giggles, maybe explain how any of that is pertinent to a discussion of the Amazon/Berkshire-Hawthorne/Chase healthcare announcement.

This is how D’Anconia hijacks threads - this is his schtick.

I remember one mod who had a whistle until the other mods took it from him.

I personally think that is the hijack is mild, I’d rather give a mild and polite request rather than report it. But it the hijack continues or is radical, then hit the report button. Very often, if reminded nicely, most posters will return.

Best practice.

[hijack] I’m prone to make tangential comments at times. As a matter of politeness I try to delay such remarks until at least some of the main issues are presented. I also use hijack tags as a nod to the OP’s main concerns. [/hijack]

Hey D’Anconia, I notice you haven’t come back to address this, I’m not sure if you’re unable to do so, maybe just unwilling, I don’t know…perhaps you realize you misunderstood something or you realized you were uninformed about what you were saying. Or hey, maybe you just don’t like answering questions that are totally off-topic in a thread that you started and don’t have anything to do with your OP. Now that I can completely understand.

One issue that comes up a lot re hijacking is who is the hijacker, and at what point is something a hijack.

It’s common for people to include many facts or assertions in the course a larger post generally directed at one issue. These various facts or assertions are generally (though not always) intended to support the larger position to one extent or another. Suppose someone comes along and disagrees with one specific point. So they quote that one point and challenge it, and are silent about the rest. Have they hijacked the thread at that point? I would think not. But then the quotee and/or others respond to that specific point, and then the challenger and/or others respond further and so on. After a while the entire discussion can thus shift focus to a discussion of the one specific point. Has there been a hijack at that point? And if so, who is at fault? The guy who made the original assertion? The guy who responded to it?

Because ISTM that sometimes in situations like the above there are people who view the thread as having been hijacked, because they personally were interested in the broader position and resent having the discussion change to a debate over one specific point. But it’s hard to see who should have done anything differently and why.

IMO it was the former. Not so much because I object to having the conversation shift direction but because your basis for shifting the debate was a misinterpretation of something someone else (i.e. me :)) said, the statement itself being on-topic and your reaction being off-topic.

Well, to be honest, hasnt that been debated quite a bit on this board? Was it nessesary to go there again?