What's the sudden big deal of Hijacking threads?

[buzzj]

Did you know that "hijack" is one of the few words in English that contains three consecutive letters of the alphabet in order?

Definitely.

 

[Zeremonie]

Here we have a thread started by TheBled that was a sincere question about thread hijacking. There was discussion about it throughout all of page one, most of page two and three.

This was a serious enough themed discussion that 3 admin-mods replied in the thread, including JD.

At about post 66 to 83 the thread derailed into nothing but a private playground, and that TheBled's thread could be now treated as a hijack thread. Who is that fair to? This thread was important enough for JD to address, and now it's a series of hijacks. I'm disappointed. If it continues this direction, I shall just move it to Fun and Games. Here's a fun game here - here

 

[Lube]

IMHO, it ran its course, everyone had their say, it kinda died, and then was hijacked.

Uh, on purpose.

As a joke.

As an example of hijacking.

Get it?

 

[mike_n_herrin]

With all due respect Z and Goula (congrats by the way on mod status ) this thread was near the top of page one of the forum for a good 2 days or so and very few different folks posted in it. a couple of us offered up some suggestions, no one added to it. No one responded to them. I was surprised to see JD post in here and felt sorta....honored for lack of a better term, that he felt the issue was important enought to add his thoughts. It did go off topic with TheBled adding in on that. If i recall correctly it was stated that when the author of the thread participated in a "hijack" that was a different story as opposed to other hijacks that might intemidate whoever the author of the thread was. the hijack in this thread, as lube pointed out, was in humor and poking fun at this thread topic.

i don't buy the theory that others passed up posting because they'd be laughed at or whatever, because as Z pointed out the thread remained on topic until near the end of page 3. it's been my observation that a heck of a lot of people don't read all the pages of a thread before they post. so i don't see that as being likely that they were intimidated by the "hijack" that took place.

I am disappointed at the two recent responces by mods here. That reaction is no more fair than the implication that "all" members of the board had, had their say in this thread, which obviously isn't true; however, the thread did sorta fade out. At this point i see the thread has had 962 views, 86 posts, 11 by andreus, and 7 by me. the author of the thread posted 5 times. it's even marked with the red "hot thread" envelope.

I offer up another suggestion...someone make the thread a sticky and the rest of us agree to not hijack it further, then see how many more responces/suggestions we get in a week or so?

 

[Zeremonie]

Mikey,

Once a thread has been derailed, you simply have no way of knowing how many guys and gals avoid posting an on-topic post in the thread because now it's so far off track. To me the question is not, "has this thread outlived its vitality for the original topic?" but rather, "Who can decide for this entire community that there's nothing left to contribute on topic to the thread??" Would you find it equally acceptable if someone just started bumping old threads from page gazillion with a bunch of off-topic posts? Those are now worthless threads too, by this standard you seem to suggest.

If the thread is going to go off topic, so be it. My reaction is almost always disappointment. Whatever the case may be, those threads will frequently end up moved to F & G.

 

[Andreus]

respectfully

it is obvious that the bled does not want his thread protected, since he is one of the people that participated in the party. Isn't that what was said? if a thread starter hijacks his own thread then it doesn't matter?

respectfully

it is obvious that the membership doesnt feel abused by fun hijacks in threads. its been almost two days and no one took the topic seriously enough to post constructive sollutions but Mike, kahiah, SB, GSDX and I, as JD asked. I have yet to see a topic that people cared about at JUB that they were scared away from posting in. if people arent afraid to post about rape and underage sex when offended, I cant imagine why they would be afraid to jump on this thread like gangbusters if they really cared. JD's post is stamped...August 22nd, 2006, 01:36 PM ...there was no real hijack until Bradlees post at...August 23rd, 2006, 10:59 PM ... There was not much response at all.

that was a day and a half for people to respond unmolested in any way if they had any desire whatsoever to. while a few did, thousands were too busy watching porn and gossiping to care about this topic.

the majority of the feedback that has been given has said that they dont really agree with the moderator's approach to the whole issue.

Why infer that the guys have harmed or intimidated anyone at this point? Are you guys angry that the feedback JD asked for and got was not in agreement with the moderator actions?

Do you guys really think that just because no one has agreed with you that it means they are scared to post? could it be that they just dont agree?

I just dont understand any of this.

I dont understand why no one offered JD input over the course of a day and a half, and I dont understand why people are getting so angry about the whole thing after the fact.

I am just confused.

 

[GL]

Here we have a thread started by TheBled that was a sincere question about thread hijacking. There was discussion about it throughout all of page one, most of page two and three.

This was a serious enough themed discussion that 3 admin-mods replied in the thread, including JD.

At about post 66 to 83 the thread derailed into nothing but a private playground, and that TheBled's thread could be now treated as a hijack thread. Who is that fair to? This thread was important enough for JD to address, and now it's a series of hijacks. I'm disappointed. If it continues this direction, I shall just move it to Fun and Games. Here's a fun game here - here

Did you canvas the other 72,887 members to discover if they had, in fact, had their say? Perhaps people stopped posting serious responses because they saw what the thread had degenerated into, and perhaps people who hadn't had a chance to view the thread, and who perhaps may have wanted to venture an opinion figured it wasn't worth the effort, because they'd just be laughed at, or be made fun of, for having the audacity or the balls to venture in where they're not wanted.

That is what this type of behaviour is saying in a thread like this: This is our ground, and you worthless sh-ts can just keep the Hell out.

I know I'm going to catch hell for this somewhere down the line... In my humble opinion, you two need to get a grip here. You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yeah, hijacking is both annoying to some people and just par-for-the-course for others. This is a Gay Men's Entertainment Forum for heaven's sake. Not some super-serious, geo-political discussion forum. And the threat to move the thread to F&G is just... low.

 

[Zeremonie]

I know I'm going to catch hell for this somewhere down the line... In my humble opinion, you two need to get a grip here. You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yeah, hijacking is both annoying to some people and just par-for-the-course for others. This is a Gay Men's Entertainment Forum for heaven's sake. Not some super-serious, geo-political discussion forum. And the threat to move the thread to F&G is just... low.

So are you saying that it is acceptable for you just to annoy some people because you know best when a thread is finished? And would you find it okay to just start bumping old threads with off topic posts??


let me run this idea by you (not my idea - wish I could take credit for it but I can't) :

What if every thread started by the thread starter had a signal in it, as to how they felt about hijacks? That is, what if the title of the thread always had an "OPEN" or "ClOSED" in it to indicate whether hijacks were welcome? I.e. (and this is just a hypothetical) "FDA allowed morning after pill with no prescription - CLOSED" and "Pluto is not a planet - OPEN" - what do you think of that idea?

 

[Zeremonie]

You know what, GL made me think of a good point. If this thread was moved to F&G, that would basically mean, no one would be able to add a serious reply to it again, so it turn it wouldn't really be us denying the thread anymore serious replies, as it was intended in the first place.

However at some point a thread is so very hijacked that it's not restorable - a good example of that was hot cute or neither.

 

[mike_n_herrin]

I'm not aware i was attempting to suggest any kind of standard. I was mearly pointing out that to say the thread had been hijacked and suggesting it was't given a chance after 2 days of being near the top of page 1 of hot topics wasn't, in my mind, accurate.

the thread only went off topic for about a page. out of four pages that's not that much and it's now very much on topic. so once again i suggest it be made a sticky. you may not know how many folks would have replied if it hadn't gone off topic for 15 posts, but you also don't know how many people wouldn't have replied even if it had stayed on topic up to this point. as i said there were over 900 views of the thread and only a handful of people bothered to post. i would suspect that Who posts in a thread is more indicative of whether other people are intimidated by it or not. Especially when one of the owners of the site posts (which i'm very glad he did).

 

[Zeremonie]

Sure BLAME ME.
If the thread was that off topic after my post then why was it not locked.
After all,it is just useless banter isnt it?

I thought about locking it, but you know we try to avoid locking threads. A locked thread is useless to everyone, and rarely is that a win.

 

[Andreus]

Sure BLAME ME.
If the thread was that off topic after my post then why was it not locked.
After all,it is just useless banter isnt it?

lol

no offense meant bradlee

I just meant that it more likely that people are afraid to disagree with mods and not post than it is that a hijack is causing them to not post.

you were just the first to notice the thread was floundering. I was watching it. When you bumped the thread with your comment it had rotated to the end of the second page.

 

[mike_n_herrin]

let me run this idea by you (not my idea - wish I could take credit for it but I can't) :

What if every thread started by the thread starter had a signal in it, as to how they felt about hijacks? That is, what if the title of the thread always had an "OPEN" or "ClOSED" in it to indicate whether hijacks were welcome? I.e. (and this is just a hypothetical) "FDA allowed morning after pill with no prescription - CLOSED" and "Pluto is not a planet - OPEN" - what do you think of that idea?

i believe that is the only suggestions that drew and i came up with that might work. back on like page 2. Although you put it much clearer.

 

[Andreus]

No,there was no other JUB drama worth posting in at the time,and I needed to let people know in my subtle way to lighten up a bit.

or that

didnt want to be rude, but since you went there...

 

[GL]

So are you saying that it is acceptable for you just to annoy some people because you know best when a thread is finished? And would you find it okay to just start bumping old threads with off topic posts??

Mel, I'm not an idiot. I can tell when a thread is serious and deserves to be treated in that fashion. Conversely, I know the members with whom I can have fun with. I didn't fall of the turnip truck just yesterday.

let me run this idea by you (not my idea - wish I could take credit for it but I can't) :

What if every thread started by the thread starter had a signal in it, as to how they felt about hijacks? That is, what if the title of the thread always had an "OPEN" or "ClOSED" in it to indicate whether hijacks were welcome? I.e. (and this is just a hypothetical) "FDA allowed morning after pill with no prescription - CLOSED" and "Pluto is not a planet - OPEN" - what do you think of that idea?

Works for me.

 

[slobone]

So are you saying that it is acceptable for you just to annoy some people because you know best when a thread is finished? And would you find it okay to just start bumping old threads with off topic posts??


let me run this idea by you (not my idea - wish I could take credit for it but I can't) :

What if every thread started by the thread starter had a signal in it, as to how they felt about hijacks? That is, what if the title of the thread always had an "OPEN" or "ClOSED" in it to indicate whether hijacks were welcome? I.e. (and this is just a hypothetical) "FDA allowed morning after pill with no prescription - CLOSED" and "Pluto is not a planet - OPEN" - what do you think of that idea?

That's an excellent idea. I was going to start doing something similar myself, by putting HIJACK FRIENDLY at the top of my just-for-fun threads.

And please don't start moving all the fun threads to Fun & Games. Some of us find that forum very annoying and never go there.

And I KNOW you realize that the people who started deliberately hijacking this thread were just doing it as a tease. It was a JOKE!

The mods and admins here are some of the best I've seen on any website, and I respect your point of view. And I certainly don't want JUB to become a democracy, because that would lead to a lot of tiresome bickering.

But when you're contemplating a major rules change, or starting to enforce a rule that hasn't been enforced, maybe at least poll us to see how many people really care?

 

[Andreus]

i believe that is the only suggestions that drew and i came up with that might work. back on like page 2. Although you put it much clearer.

the idea was Snapcats originally, but lets not forget that people really didnt take to it.

they didnt care to protect their threads from hijacking in the CE&P forum, and believe me, that is an intensely competitive and focused debate forum. the hijacks there are not about fun, they are about a conversation devolving off topic.

If it didnt take off in there, it may not do it in here either.

I think it would be worth a try

 

[Andreus]

I honestly think that people are not responding because they are afraid to disagree with a moderator, not due to a hijack of any sort.

a day online is a year of virtual life

things move fast. if you dont get the response you hope for in a thread, you just move on, not infer that the people who responded have scared the people who agree with you away.

this isnt a science, its the internet.

I know through years of experience that people are definitely not afraid to disagree with me , so ....

 

[GL]

I'm curious as to how those who are saying that everyone who may have wanted to post on the subject already has know that for a fact -- and therefore, it's 'open season' in this thread?

People can be away from home, off on business, taking a vacation, having their computer looked at, caught after a storm with no connexion ... and any of a host of other things. Maybe they just wanted a day or two to think over their opinions by voicing them. The point is that we'll never know.

By doing this, a decision is being made about them: that their opinion doesn't matter. True, conversations may wander from their original topic as things evolve over time, but this isn't a natural evolution, this is a sudden and rapid derangement. It's a form of passive-aggressive flaming that leaves those being flamed, both the active posting participants in the thread, and those who didn't post or didn't have a chance to post, no real way to respond, because it isn't aimed an anyone or anything in particular: it's aimed everywhere, and at everyone, and the end result is to derail the ongoing conversation and make and further conversation impossible. And this isn't just about this particular thread.

So what do you propose to do? Heavily police each and every thread and post to make sure everyone is treated equally and fairly? Doesn't that strike you as sort of oppressive? If this was to become the way of this forum, I assure you that you will see members leave.

 

[Andreus]

fairness as percieved by whom....

and how

and what