Can you please explain-Thread Hijacking

[Infidel Dog]

i wouldn't know. I havent' a clue who's who at the zoo here, yet. Anybody could be either side of that as far as I know.

It's just something I've noticed that happens elsewhere and felt like sharing.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Charles Anthony]

Thread jacking is off-topic disruption of the discussion. 

 

On 2/14/2020 at 8:12 AM, Rue said:

It is sometimes impossible to understand when Charles decides to "moderate".

I prefer to leave you all alone unless the dialogue gets nasty or silly and other folks intend to stay on topic. 

SHORT VERSION:  Pretend I enjoy reading your posts for the sake of learning the topic of discussion. 

HINT:  A pleasant sense of humor sometimes makes a difference. 

 

On 2/14/2020 at 8:12 AM, Rue said:

Please can anyone tell me how responding directly to the words in a post that is allowed in a thread, hijacks the thread but the post being responded to, does not? Is that even possible? 

No.  That is not possible.  Moderator intervention does not imply judgement upon the "allowed" post being responded to. 

Let by-gones be by-gones is the way. 

 

 

On 2/14/2020 at 9:31 AM, dialamah said:

Yeah, I agree - if I respond to a post that is insulting or inflammatory, and there's a complaint on my post that is judged valid, then both posters (me and the other person) should be smacked. 

I prefer not to censor any of your on-topic discussion .  My goal is to lead the discussion back on track. 

Sometimes off-topic discussion branches off into worthy discussion --- albeit of its own thread.  Thus, I am going to try a different strategy to make members happy without them feeling censored. 

When thread drift occurs too much in a particular case, I will create the new thread by splitting threads off the derailment.  What do you all think of that strategy? 

For example: 

 

 

On 2/14/2020 at 7:19 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Three strategies to consider that have usually worked for me:

1)  When responding to an exciting off topic adventure, always preface with an acknowledgement of same and urge the thread to get back on topic, endearing you forever to the mod(s)...well...at least for a minute or two.

2) Always weave some semblance of the actual topic into your response.

3) Resist the urge to gallop down the rabbit hole even further.

Yup.  That works. 

 

 

On 5/9/2020 at 3:07 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Judging such things always seems arbitrary and often wrong to me. In fact...have I just hijacked this thread?

No.  You did not hijack this thread.  Quite the opposite. 

HINT:  There is nothing to win in the forum discussions. 

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

When thread drift occurs too much in a particular case, I will create the new thread by splitting threads off the derailment.  What do you all think of that strategy? 

What a bunch more work for you.   I do appreciate your willingness to create that extra work for yourself, so thanks.  Hope it solves the issue.

[SkyHigh]

On 5/16/2020 at 1:45 PM, Charles Anthony said:

Thread jacking is off-topic disruption of the discussion. 

 

I prefer to leave you all alone unless the dialogue gets nasty or silly and other folks intend to stay on topic. 

SHORT VERSION:  Pretend I enjoy reading your posts for the sake of learning the topic of discussion. 

HINT:  A pleasant sense of humor sometimes makes a difference. 

 

No.  That is not possible.  Moderator intervention does not imply judgement upon the "allowed" post being responded to. 

Let by-gones be by-gones is the way. 

 

 

I prefer not to censor any of your on-topic discussion .  My goal is to lead the discussion back on track. 

Sometimes off-topic discussion branches off into worthy discussion --- albeit of its own thread.  Thus, I am going to try a different strategy to make members happy without them feeling censored. 

When thread drift occurs too much in a particular case, I will create the new thread by splitting threads off the derailment.  What do you all think of that strategy? 

For example: 

 

 

Yup.  That works. 

 

 

No.  You did not hijack this thread.  Quite the opposite. 

HINT:  There is nothing to win in the forum discussions. 

First off, I must thank you, it's always satisfying when my assumptions are confirmed by the relevant parties themselves, and by using your attempt to appease those whom you support ( i.e. Argus or Dougie) when their ridiculous, ignorant rantings are challenged by "creating" a completely new thread indirectly(at best) accusing (me in this case) of "thread high-jacking" Ridiculous, and here's why. First, in a thread call somthing like "was canada better before" ( im paraphrasing, but thats close enough) the statement was made that Nova Scotia or Nova scotianers was or were great pre confederation, i asked which people or people's he was referring to. How is that in anyway off topic?

Now you obviously how no understanding or knowledge of the Acadian people, which in turn implies you have little knowledge of Canadian history as a whole, for if you did you wouldn't A; fail to understand that by evoking nova Scotia you are necessarily envoking the Acadians, as they were the original europeans to settle there and B; would never use a word as insignificant as "récit" to resume the history of the oldest nation to have existed and still exist on Canadian territory, two choices as to word selection 1; you don't have a working knowledge of French, you simply did a Google translate and are ignorant to the nuance of the language and can't be bothered, or 2; you do have a working knowledge of French and purposefully and deliberately chose to use flippant terminology to try to somehow discredit or insult me. Which is it? Either way, it confirms everything I've said to you or Greg.

I came here in good faith, to have fruitful and productive exchanges with people that may or may not agree with me, and to improve my ability to communicate through the written medium. What i found was a select few people dominating a forum that have no interest in fruitful productive conversation, make no attempt at good faith arguments, and an "administration" the not only condones it but actively encourages it. 

My best guess is that you(the administration) want no, crave partisan hackery, and that from both side of the political spectrum, you want those that are simply here to bloaviate incoherent personal opinions, maybe im to nuanced for your simple minds. I see no other way to explain why you continuously allowed numerous interlocutors to impute my values, intelligence, morals etc.... Yet I ask someone to clarify a comment im a thread high jacker? Seriously? Im sure the fact that the very next comment i made after calling you out on you bullshit was flagged is a coincidence, or maybe just maybe it further proof your a bias hack

I stopped posting here because A:  intelligent, honest, epistemologicaly sound interlocutors are few and far between, and B the obvious bias in moderating by you. Though I would come on time by time simply to laugh at the growing ignorance you all call a "political forum", to make an analogy the intellectual equivalent to "man gets hit in nuts by a football". 

Low and behold, i come on today to see you've chose to use your attempt to protect your people, by branding me a thread high jacker, for responding directly to one of your aforementioned buddies post, as an example of your preferred way of handling such situations, again this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOU are just another bad faith actor among the plethorain in this forum.

Based on past history you'll most likely simply ignore this and go about your life practicing the same willful ignorance, but im honestly willing to discuss this in mature manner, if you so choose. I am aware this message was fueled with much frustration but from my perspective that frustration is completely justified, from my point of view the new thread you created was a personal attack, and i believe both the time line of events(this happened right after i questioned your ability to be impartial) and the substance of my posts in the original thread support this. 

Thoughts?????

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by SkyHigh

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

First off, I must thank you, it's always satisfying when my assumptions are confirmed by the relevant parties themselves, and by using your attempt to appease those whom you support ( i.e. Argus or Dougie) when their ridiculous

Hmmm. I've been suspended many, MANY times. As for Dougie, who, come to think of it hasn't put in an appearance lately, I'm quite sure he has too. Probably for threadjacking.

And btw, for a guy who says the quality of the discussion isn't up to his level the above incoherent rant does not appear to be an example of intelligent discussion I would wish to partake in.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Argus

[Charles Anthony]

On 5/20/2020 at 11:57 AM, SkyHigh said:

First off, I must thank you, it's always satisfying when my assumptions are confirmed by the relevant parties themselves, and by using your attempt to appease those whom you support ( i.e. Argus or Dougie) when their ridiculous, ignorant rantings are challenged by "creating" a completely new thread indirectly(at best) accusing (me in this case)

No. You were not accused of anything. Quite the opposite.  

 

On 5/20/2020 at 11:57 AM, SkyHigh said:

of "thread high-jacking" Ridiculous, and here's why. First, in a thread call somthing like "was canada better before" ( im paraphrasing, but thats close enough)

No. That is not close enough. Quite the opposite.  Therein lies the crux of the dispute. 

Nevertheless, I split the derailment into its own thread because its tone was increasingly more obnoxious but had not yet spread into the on-topic activity of the thread.  

Had the spirit of the derailment been cordial, I would have likely posted more dry general reminders. 

 

On 5/20/2020 at 11:57 AM, SkyHigh said:

Thoughts?????

You are welcome in the forum.  

[SkyHigh]

On 5/30/2020 at 12:59 PM, Charles Anthony said:

No. That is not close enough. Quite the opposite.  Therein lies the crux of the dispute. 

Not close enough? I was responding to someone who's whole shtick is the supremacy of the British Empire, who then envoked Nova Scotia ( you might not be aware, but the Acadian people were deported by the British from Nova Scotia) How is that not germain to the topic? 

The crux of my point (that you didn't touch on) was the use of them term "récit".            Again either you speak french and deliberately chose a dismissive word to undercut a founding nation of Canada, or you don't speak french and couldn't be bothered to do anything more than a Google search, indirectly dismissing an entire peoples. If you feel the need to direct conversations into threads that only conform to your political and historical view point maybe you shouldn't be moderating a "political forum" 

On 5/30/2020 at 12:59 PM, Charles Anthony said:

You are welcome in the forum.  

Though I appreciate the sentiment, it does not seem to comport to reality. Or maybe we just have different definitions of the word "Welcome"

Edited June 2, 2020 by SkyHigh

[Charles Anthony]

4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Not close enough? I was responding to someone who's whole shtick is the supremacy of the British Empire, who then envoked Nova Scotia ( you might not be aware, but the Acadian people were deported by the British from Nova Scotia) How is that not germain to the topic? 

The distinction is between time and space. 

The main thread was a discussion of stuff happening now.  You guys were disputing stuff that happened in days of yore. 

 

 

4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

The crux of my point (that you didn't touch on)

There is no point discussing politics with me.  If it matters, I am fine with granting you being right on your point. Please feel free to explain in that 2nd thread. 

There is nothing wrong with the topic you were engaging.  It deserves a unique thread of its own.  The way I see things is that I afford more respect to your discussion than you guys did because my actions give it the prominence it deserves. The way you want things is a clutter of offensive rhetoric lost amid a different discussion.  Everything you want to convey can be conveyed without personal attacks. 

Please offer a better title for the 2nd thread to more accurate highlight the topic you wish to discuss.  I will change it to whatever you wish. 

 

SHORT VERSION: Take control of your own public discussion. La politesse est une forteresse.