Again, not to slice too finely, but I wasn’t debating why men hate the show. I get why men hate the show. What I don’t get is why they seem so fixated on the appearances of the actresses that it causes them to make nasty comments and doubt the entire premise of the show. That was precisely the topic of the OP, which I quoted both in that thread and in this one. Perhaps my communication skills failed, because I really was trying to address the question about the show as posed by the OP, which had nothing whatsoever to do with CGI, and only tangentially to do with the new movie.
So, do you actually read threads or just respond to reports?
This is now the third time I said I read the thread before it was reported.
From a complete outsider to this particular situation, I don’t think she ever hijacked. The OP was essentially, “EWWW These women are OLD! Who’d want to do them?!? A show in which anyone would want to do them is unrealistic!”. Rubystreak explained why it wasn’t unrealistic. She also offhand asked why men were so nasty about the show, and other people responded. In my (not moderator) book, that’s just simple conversational drift, it happens all the time. I don’t understand why Zhen’ka started foaming with rage. It appeared rather ridiculous to this reader.
Just my two cents.
Except in the PIT, right? 
Just adding some general comments.
First, there’s a difference between threadshitting and hijack. “Threadshitting” is when someone pops into a thread to say, “This is all bullshit, why are you reading this?” Hijack is when the topic is supposed to be about a TV show, and someone says that the lead actor was also in a recent Broadway play. (Interesting aside: I can’t find any rule against either threadshitting or hijacking. I think they’re just considered social rules of good manners?)
Hijacking is an area that’s very difficult to moderate. On the one hand, relevant tangents and only-slightly-relevant asides can be interesting to many posters. On the other hand, totally re-directing a topic is just, well, not a good way to have discussion. Where’s the line drawn? I wish I had a hard-and-fast rule, but it’s pretty much just situational. It’s partly how the other posters respond. It’s partly the moderator’s subjective judgement of how afield a comment is. However, whether something is an aside/tangent or a hijack is a moderator’s call. The best response is to REPORT a suspect post (li’l ! in red triangle in upper right corner of post) and let the mod handle it.
Threadshitting is an area that’s also difficult to moderate. On the one hand, the wishes of the OP in terms of the direction that a thread takes should be respected. On the other hand, if the posters want to take a topic in a different direction, their wishes should be respected too. Again, proper response is to REPORT a suspected thread rather than to insult the poster.
ON TATTLING:
I hate the word “tattling.” WHere do you draw the line? If you see a post announcing that the Bank of Nigeria will send you millions of dollars if you just click this link, would you report it as spam, or would you not want to “tattle”? If you witnessed a car accident, would you avoid “tattling” on the drunk driver who ran the red light? If you saw flames coming out of a house, would you not call the fire dept because you didn’t want to “tattle”?
The fact is that there’s way more here than moderators can read, or even keep up with. (THat’s not relevant to this specific situation, that’s a comment in general.) We rely on the members to REPORT bad stuff. It’s not “tattling” because there’s no guarantee that the mods will see it the way you do. It’s just calling something to our attention. If we don’t have people reporting offenses, we might as well give up having moderated boards at all, and just descend into the free-for-all that so many message boards are.
Please, please, drop the word “tattling.” Think of it as doing your civic duty, helping to keep our streets clean.
Re: tattling:
I used to sit and wonder whether I was tattling, which I define as annoying those in charge with minute problems they didn’t really need to get involved with.But then it dawned on me that I’m not the one who is supposed to make the decision on whether something needs to be moderated. That’s their job!
So now, if I’m reading something and find myself offended, I assume that at least one poster was acting like a jerk, and I report it. So far it’s seemed to work. Certain admins even thank me for doing it.
Thanks, BigT, for expressing in one sentence what it took me a whole paragraph or two.
::: looking through adult education catalog for course in “brevity and succinctness” :::
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck. Is duck.
I don’t know why people can’t state what is plainly obvious when it comes to some people who post here.
It may be plainly obvious to you, but in the absence of concrete evidence (got any? seriously) it’s still just your opinion. (To extend the metaphor, unless it admits to being a duck or genetic testing reveals it to be a duck or an ornithologist concludes it’s a duck, there’s still a possibility it’s not a duck.)
I don’t even know who you’re referring to, so it’s not *that *plainly obvious.
Well of course you don’t know who he’s referring to or else he’d get a talking to like I did. There’s a bunch of trolls here to choose from anyways.
[Modding]As I said, no more of this or warnings will follow.[/Modding]
Things can appear plainly obvious without being true. If you think someone is a troll, you can say so in the Pit, but not in any other forum.
Suggestion:
:::looking through education catalog for course in ‘succinctness’:::