Resolved: Hijacking threads should never be used as a reason for banning

So I saw this thread a few days ago, read an interesting article on the topic over the weekend, and thought about contributing to the discussion.

Then I started reading the postings in the thread, and only about a third make an attempt to refer to the topic. Maybe 1/6 provide discussion relevant to the topic. The rest is just virulent anti-Republican bashing. I’m not sure if I want to post in thread now, because it’s such a cesspool that it should probably be be moved to the BBQ Pit.

I note that UltraVires was recently banned for hijacking threads. I remarked at the time that threads going off on diversions is hardly rare (I should have said it’s endemic), and also admitted that I participate in threads going off on a tangent. It seemed at the time an unfair justification for the banning.

After reading the linked thread, I don’t think hijacking a thread should ever again be used as a reason for banning. I welcome moderators trying to keep a thread on-topic and issuing instructions to keep a thread on-topic. Someone earning a warning for violating a moderator’s specific instructions within a thread would be a warning I’d agree with, and I might agree with someone who persistently ignored moderators’ instructions being banned. But using hijacking alone as a reason for banning? That’s selective enforcement and an unworthy reason.

If you hijack threads to the point of being a jerk, you reap what you sow.

UV was banned for trolling. The nature of his trolling often involved hijacking threads.

That’s so nebulous that it’s an impossible standard. Is it hijacking a thread if someone is making a point using an incorrect fact, and someone corrects the fact?

That’s no a hijack.

All moderation is subjective.

Trolling was a given reason for the ban, but even that was a pretty poor reason. And, even if you agree that it was trolling, the listed reason was hardly off-topic.
(thread number approximate)

And when the reasons from a related thread were listed later, trolling wasn’t among them.

  • He basically had no defenders. The one defense boiled down to “don’t feel strongly that he needs to go. But I can’t make a strong case for keeping him
  • He was considered disruptive often
  • He insulted others often, possibly unintentionally but all the same.
  • He hijack threads.
  • His contributions of substance to debates were virtually non-existant
  • Basically he fell under the “more trouble than he’s worth” rule.

I’ll try not to go off-topic further, as I don’t want to earn a warning.

Yup, and it’s usually very clear that that ‘making a point using an incorrect fact’ is both intentional and with the knowledge that posters taking that bait will be told to end the hijack and that there is almost never more than a thread note for the initiator of said hijack.

Wanna really stop hijacks? Start thread banning the initiators of hijacks.

Which is the problem. One person’s hijack is another person’s interesting diversion. I’d actually like to read a discussion about the merits/problems with the Republican HOR investigation into Joe Biden’s links to corrupt activity. I’d be willing to contribute to such a discussion. But yet another Trump-bashing thread? I got bored with those after the first few hundred. But apparently turning an interesting thread into a Trump-bashing thread isn’t an identified hijack, even if it’s a de-facto hijack. That’s disappointing, but I understand that the moderators don’t want to closely police all threads, and I generally appreciate them having a light touch. If I think a thread has gone off the rails, I can just stop reading it. But the moderators shouldn’t be warning/banning people for hijacking a thread when it’s an endemic practice.

That particular thread was just premature – there won’t be any investigations until the Republicans take over the House in January. So, in the meantime, people are just having a discussion.

For that thread, any discussion before January would be a hijack – maybe suggest that a mod lock that thread until the first investigation takes place?

Your characterization of UV’s banning is as wrong here as it was in your original thread about him. I don’t want to discuss it here, since it would be a hijack…

Anyway, hijacking a thread would never be the sole reason for banning someone. Repeated hijacks after moderator instructions not to? Sure, especially if those hijacks often cause the threads to derail – a poster like that is just being disruptive, essentially trolling.

No one is stopping you from starting a thread about Republican investigations and requesting that swipes at Trump are taken elsewhere. You could probably even coordinate with the moderators in advance – I think I did that for a transgender thread because those tend to go off the rails quickly.

How many threads do we need about that ban, anyway?

So as your first thread wasn’t enough you started a second? :confused:

An occasional hijacking alone will not be a reason to ban, but combined with other behaviors or a pattern of trolling via hijacks it will remain a reason to ban. Hijacking alone was not the reason UV was banned.

You already had a thread to discuss this. Don’t start another just because you weren’t satisfied with the result of the first one.

We get it. You don’t agree with UV’s banning. You are going to have to find some way to deal with it. Don’t bring it up in ATMB again.