I don’t agree, as that’s not the main source of people having trouble staying on topic. It’s nearly always a gradual shift.
I think part of the issue is people not identifying the main source of the problem. That’s why the proposed solutions don’t work.
For myself, it is normally both. A currently active example - I split 9 different posts from “How Carney’s doing, Canada?” P&E thread on battery speculation to create a new topic: Next Generation of EV Batteries by BYD and others - Real, Speculative, or Vaporware?.
First, the entire side track began by talking about Carney allowing a number of Chinese EV’s into the market. Starting with the post I first split (which, as you said, made MacDoc an unintentional OP) were all about EV battery tech and especially Donut’s take. None of them referred back to the actual topic of the thread. So I didn’t want it to renew the hijack, but the posts were a good discussion in their own right. But doing a split, especially where I have to filter a mess of on-topic and hijacks from each other, is a good bit of work, ends up with clumsy titles (like the one I created), and sometimes upset inadvertent OP’s.
Which is why I, and almost all the other mods suggest you create your own OP so you have better titles and control. And on several occasions, I’ve offered to move old posts out of the thread to the new one (generally not to a Pit thread though).
Then you definitely shouldn’t post it. Again, this is in context of derailing a thread by creating or perpetuating a tangent taking it off-track.
Fwiw, if we do move a block of posts, we are generally (probably always) open to the “new op” requesting a title change.
Certainly - I’ve often explicitly mentioned I would (though I didn’t do this exact time), and I know several times I’ve seen Aspenglow and What_Exit do so as well. The latter openly admits that he has a poor sense when it comes to naming threads! My title was an effort to address the discussion that the 9 posts in question covered, but again, this is why it’s better to spin off or start your own thread before I/we (possibly ham-handedly in my case) end up doing it.
No, it’s in context of trying to have an actual conversation, instead of it missing large pieces and borderline incoherent because it’s split into fragments.
That’s a completely nonsensical argument when you’re talking about “pieces” irrelevant to the conversation.
Conversations in general meander, topic-wise, whether they are in meat- or cyberspace.
My point is that they aren’t irrelevant.
By definition, a hijack is a post that lacks relevance to the subject. If it was relevant, it wouldn’t be a hijack. Are you objecting completely to the whole idea of hijacks? Because if so, I’m not sure how to have a productive discussion around such a fundamental disagreement.
No, it’s something the moderators have declared to be a hijack, no matter how relevant or necessary it is to the conversation.
Got it, so you do dispute the entire existence of hijacks.
Therefore, your opinion doesn’t really have any bearing on this discussion.
No, I just think that moderator standards have become too restrictive on the matter. It’s not a binary issue.
We’re working on a prospective solution to this concern, but we’re not yet prepared to discuss it with posters on the Board until we run it by the mod loop first. It’s going to take some time. Our proposal may or may not withstand mod loop discussion, but we’re trying to address your concerns. We’re not oblivious to them. Be patient and we’ll see what we can do.
Meantime, please pay attention to which thread you’re posting in, and that will go a long way toward alleviating your issues with disjointed discussions.
It seems to me that conversations are far more likely to become disjointed and borderline incoherent if hijacks aren’t moderated.
Yes. Look at the “What were you thinking?” thread in the Pit, which is routinely hijacked with completely nonrelevant tangents that go on for dozens of posts. People get frustrated with the hijacks there, and this is in a thread in the Pit where we all expect excessive tangents. If non-Pit threads got like that with unmoderated tangents, I’d quit reading the site.
Am I the only poster who doesn’t necessarily think in a straight line? A question of why the Apollo missions had three astronauts might lead me to remember that the Gemini missions had two, but when the Soviets designed Soyuz in the 1960s the crew size was three, and how passenger aircraft originally had four or five people in the cockpit, but it was reduced to three, and eventually two, so why are space capsules designed for three, but the new Artemis capsule is designed for four . . .
And so on. That’s how I work through a question in my head. Is all of that off-topic when ten people do it here?
No.
I mean, I totally understand the POV, because that describes what happens when I research something, falling into an endless tree of related topics, but…
I’m going to remind everyone that the strict enforcement of hijacks (it’s a rule everywhere, but much more relaxed in most forums) is a P&E/GD thing. And it’s important for a few reasons.
First, starting with GD (same rules), it’s not a formal Debate as some may have done IRL, but it’s supposed to be designed around a higher level of discussion:
For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates. Other discussion of religion, religious figures, personal beliefs and the like typically belongs in the IMHO or MPSIMS forums.
Of course, not all OP’s are up to the lofty levels above, but if you’re going to discuss such things, you’d expect things to be more carefully considered. But even so, that doesn’t mean a single unrelated thought will damage the discussion. But it’s almost never just one. Because if every single poster with a thought process like yours (or mine, or many others) shares their sub-thoughts, and then other posters reflect on those, well, the discussion does easily get caught in a never-ending branching. Not always, no, but that’s why I’ve mentioned patterns. They aren’t 100% predictive, nothing human is, but they are things we watch for, along with the board’s and individual poster’s known ruts.
P&E is by nature, a somewhat different creature, in that unlike many (by no means all!) GD topics, the consequences are much closer at hand, likely to directly impact the posters and those they love, and possibly their fundamental rights. And within the major political groups, and countless subgroups ( and in other nations, far more options than just the USA’s two main political groups) there are areas of disagreement, and single issue voters/posters. So unlike the comparatively low stakes of GD (again, generalization) the stakes are much higher, and many posters have a hard time on separating the discussion the OP has written, and continue to travel towards their own, personal definition of the right answer, or what is the right question in the first place.
Multiply that times however many posters might be participating in the thread - it gets unmanageable fast. And the actual question of the OP can easily get lost in the endless dialing down on some minute detail. Like, as a recent example, an exact legal definition of what is “treason”.
So, and back to the quote from our esteemed Not-Superman, it’s a case of considering the greater good, and possibly self editing. I know I’ve written entire posts, and then stopped and looked at them - and realized it wasn’t on topic at all. And either edited, deleted, or posted them elsewhere as a result. And sometimes I screw it up as well - I’m not perfect either. But being aware of both what and where you’re posting, and the OP’s stated intent is quite important in the two forums that spark the most debate.
The current Iran threads are already disjointed and borderline incoherent. Moderation makes up a significant portion of each thread, nobody knows what is supposed to go where, and I strongly suspect that a lot of people have stopped posting because of it. Even if it were possible for everyone to perfectly follow moderator instructions (which even the moderators have acknowledged is not possible, as there is “significant overlap” between the threads), the way that the threads have been split has made it impossible to have any real discussion. You cannot seriously talk about literally any major conflict without talking about the historical context of the relationship between the parties, the leaders of the parties and their goals and political situations, the actual events of the conflict, and speculation on the potential effects of events. Splitting some of these off from each other doesn’t make for more guided conversation, it makes for less complete, less informed, less useful conversation.
I want to be clear that I generally appreciate the moderation here, and I understand the desire for tight moderation if someone starts talking about things that are truly not on topic, like their favorite hat, or an Iranian pop hit from 1980 or whatever, but it seems to me that the moderation in these threads (and the old Ukraine threads as well) has only actively made the discussion worse, while also making for more work for the mods.