Why don’t we have a rule on hijacking threads? Sometimes it’s really freaking annoying when you’re trying to discuss a topic, and then along come abunch of other posters who start an argument on a completely different topic. Case in Point:
John Doe is pitted (let’s say on the subject of helicopters)
Thread starts out with people saying WHY they are pitting him for his attitude on helicopters.
Then, other posters come in, and completely hijack the thread to a discussion/argument on helicopters themselves, ignoring the main topic. Also ignoring those of who wish to pull the thread back on track.
Why can’t there be a rule on this? It’s really, REALLY annoying? Why can’t a thread be split, or rule said, “Hey-start another thread?” If one isn’t allowed to start a thread in the wrong forum, why is okay to start a completely off-topic discussion in the wrong thread?
I don’t think you can set a firm guideline on what’s a hijack and what is a legitimate direction for a topic to take. If I start a thread with the post “My favorite movie of all time is Casablanca” which of the following responses is a hijack?
1: “My favorite movie of all time is Star Wars.”
2: “I found Casablanca to be over-rated.”
3: “What’s your second favorite movie?”
I may have intended it to go in one of these directions and the responses might go in another. But a thread is a collaboration; the original poster doesn’t get to set the rules on how people respond to his post.
There’s also the endless threads (mostly in CS and IMHO) where the first five responding posters misread the OP in the same way.
(And no, I’m not doing an ironic highjacking/misreading of this thread’s OP - just pointing out another situation where hijacking is hard to rule on, if the mass of posters wants to take a thread elsewhere).
Seems like too many rules to me, and something that might stifle discussion if strictly enforced. A lot of hijacks are fun tangents, anyway. My own feeling is that it is up to the OP to bring the discussion back to the original topic, if s/he is unwilling to devote the thread to the new direction, and that it is simple courtesy for other posters to then follow the lead of the OP.
This place would be boring without the hijacks. I don’t really consider them hijacks. Its just the thread branching out, sometimes in interesting ways. If it is just two people sniping at each other then it is a hijack. Usually the mods jump in at that point. No need for any further rules.
Because out in the real world where most of us get our experience interacting with other people, conversations naturally diverge from their main focus. I don’t see a problem with threads being hijacked, really.
Besides, this board has waaaaaaay too many rules already.
Particularly in the BBQ Pit, one was of suggesting that the original complaint was unjustified or trivial is to ignore it and talk about some topic on a tangent. So it looks like a hijack, but at a meta level it’s still an indirect comment on the OP.
At the other extreme, in GQ, once the original question has been answered, it seems sensible to allow jokes, etc. In addition, one question can suggest other related questions: it seems to me that it would be tedious to require those to go into new threads.
We do tend to discourage hijacks in GQ, but not so much in other forums. In GQ, if some completely tangential issue comes into discussion, I will sometimes ask that a new thread be started in order not to derail answering the OP. (This often ends up being in GD). Otherwise, I think hijacks are mainly discouraged when they are due to a fight between posters, in which case they are told to take it to the Pit.
Pittings, as in the OP, sometimes do end up becoming debates about broader issues. Personally, I don’t see any reason to insist that Pittings must consist only of criticism of the Pittee.
Having a debate break out in the course of a Pitting strikes me as being like the old joke, “I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out.”
Adding to Colibri’s and others’ comments: we’ve not found it easy to distinguish between tangential asides and deliberate hijacks. And sometimes discussions just go in a direction the OP didn’t anticipate.
We have always been willing to take action if there’s a deliberate hijack or thread-shitting. Best thing to do is to REPORT the post that you think is offensive or hijacking or whatever, and let the mods decide. Our response will vary based on the situation (and, for example, whether other posters have found the tangent to be interesting.)
No, it’s not that I mind some hijacking, (the goofy stuff in MPSIMS or whatever) it was mostly that thread, that wound up as another long battle on religion again, when there are several of the same damned discussions in at least two others in the Pit. THAT’S where it starts to get annoying.
Okay, maybe not a rule-and yeah, you’re right, there are two damned many rules here (give me the cat-o-nine tails, por favor) But more like, on a case by case-say a thread split, or something of that nature? Like I said, it just got annoying after awhile.
*If anyone from the FBI or CIA is reading this, I’m KIDDING!
That thread was a pitting about someone’s views on the supernatural. Where did you think it was going to go? That isn’t a hijack, its the natural progression. What do you want a mod to do, go in and say, “Cut it out everyone, this thread is about calling kanicbird an idiot. Lets get back on track”?
As the OP of the linked thread, I feel obliged to point out that I quickly came to feel the opening of the thread was an error born of my bad mood, and the pitting unjust. I requested that it be closed, whereupon I was told that, since the thread had been hijacked and the conversation was now on an entirely unrelated topic, the thread would be allowed to remain open. I declined to argue, but that struck me as odd.
See, what I’m wondering, for a thread that’s so thoroughly hijacked-not just a minor one-why not just split them? And like I said-there WERE threads already discussing the exact subject in the hijack.
