Threadjacking...a definition (1 Viewer)

[Peter Reuss]

We recently deleted some posts for 'Threadjacking,' and some have wondered what in the world we were talking about.

A definition (from urbandictionary.com):

Taking over a thread on a message board by taking a part of the original posted topic, twisting it around and "hijacking" the thread itself. What happens is that the original content contained in the post becomes moot and whatever the "Thread Jacker" has manipulated the content to be becomes the new content thereby "hijacking" the original intent of post. People now respond to the "thread jacker's" input and the that becomes the focus of the tread.

 

[Mitch]

Don't all threads have a tendancy to start on one issue and naturally progress to other areas possibly not thought of by the poster. How can one through an open forum tell what is thread jacking and, what is the other???? It seems many posts will get deleted if its deemed hi-jacking when it could be an innocent addition to the narrative. This is especially pertinant to discussions in say the historical areas and similar
Mitch

 

[Rob]

I think it's often down to whether the author of the thread is happy with where it's gone to. I've often started threads that have ' drifted' as it were, but if in the end they come back again ( as they often do) then I have no problem with that at all. However it's often obvious if a thread is deliberately shifted . I think the author should have more say/sway in a case like this.

Also sometimes threads are drifted by surreal and pretty enjoyable humour and this is great, but again there is a big diff between this and a deliberate hijack .

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

I would have to disagree about any author having any more influence over what is or, is not an alleged hi-jack as, it could be used against those persons they dislike to censor that person when they are indeed just inputting in a thread and, could also be used to keep certain posters away from certain threads when, they are open or, should be to all.

The points about humour etc are what I was getting at as thousands of threads I have seen have started say, about a K&C AFV but went all around the doors but, have been roughly relevant. I don't think it does any harm on a discussion forum to have discussion and this is a strange one for me.

If say you start a thread about a K&C item and praise it and someone comes on and says well, I dislike this and its not for me then that could be construed as thread hi-jacking as its going to bring comments about accuracy etc which, to me, are all relevant and not in the least bit offensive.

This concerns me a little as it seems to give further unecessary arbitory power to decide what is relevant to a thread and what is not. Unless its deliberately done then it should be allowed to flow its natural course or, there will be a restriction on comments
Mitch

 

[Rob]

But the trouble is Mitch, if the author has no say at all then it can be the reverse of what you just said in that a hijacker can target a certain member and he can do nothing about it.

If I start a thread as such you suggest, and someone says ' I hate that item' I have no problem at all with that because it's free speech and we all look at things differently. I would not want to see deletions just because someone said they don't like the item, no one wants ra ra only threads. I think an opposite view of an item is an entirely different thing from hijacking a thread for other reasons.

I would hope we are mostly adult enough to have freedom of speech and at the same time respect each other. I may have raised doubts in the past about self moderation in the past , but I am happy to confess that I could be entirely wrong, it would be great if we here could save Pete and the mods a lot of work and demonstrate a bit of self moderation more often. I know I'm trying to do it myself a bit more these days.

Rob

 

[thebritfarmer]

You can tell when there is threadjacking and when there isn't. A naturally progression from the original conversation is entirely different.

 

[Napoleon1er]

I know in the past I have been unintentionaly guilty of this infraction, and have personaly committed to do my best to avoid this, so sorry to anyone whose thread has fallen victem to me.... That aside, I agree that it would be difficult and have ill cosequences if all not on topic posts were deleted. I think the best solution would be to utilize the report post buttton, which would allow both thread starters and posters to have a voice (compremise Rob and Mitch?).
Hope this didn't offend anyone,
Sandor

 

[wayne556517]

So any news on the STUKA.................{sm3}{sm4}{sm3}

I still think FL are to skinny and small.........................{sm3}{sm4}{sm3}{sm2}

"Threadjacking" 2 examples..........................{sm4}

 

[Toy Soldier Brigade]

I thoroughly enjoy drinking and gambling.

 

[wayne556517]

I thoroughly enjoy drinking and gambling.

{sm4}{sm4}{sm4}{sm4}{sm4}

 

[notascoldasbastogne]

Whats this thread about DRINKING, and GAMBLING im in. {sm3}

 

[johnnybach]

I'll bet you I can drink this double before I'm thrown off..........doh!

 

[trooper]

Might I suggest that as most of the threadjacking and susequent bickering is centred around two or three companies that all comments about, or questions relating to, a specific company should be confined to that company's thread. This would have the effect of confining the arguments in their rightful slots and free up space elsewhere for more general discussion. A place for everything and everything in it's place makes for a more harmonious forum IMO. Trooper

 

[Mitch]

That would be fine if everything in the hobby was so compartmentalised but, it is not and, very few collectors are one manufcaturer buyers. Instead they have multiple ranges and mix with multiple ranges so, when someone posts a picture that has several manufcaturers items its as equal to go in say one section as it is the other. How can you restrict that and the subsequent discussion that arises from the orginal post??? posters are bound to comment on what they see as their favourite set or whatever and, equally, one is going to offer a differing opinion

I would not like to see this type of issue at all IMO. Now, did someone mention a stuka, thin or skinny figures and a Malt whisky???
Mitch

Might I suggest that as most of the threadjacking and susequent bickering is centred around two or three companies that all comments about, or questions relating to, a specific company should be confined to that company's thread. This would have the effect of confining the arguments in their rightful slots and free up space elsewhere for more general discussion. A place for everything and everything in it's place makes for a more harmonious forum IMO. Trooper

 

[theBaron]

Meh.

 

[Peter Reuss]

The mods consider Threadjacking on a case by case basis. We understand that threads do tend to wander a bit. When someone persistantly tries to move threads (often while picking a fight), that's when the mods step in.

 

[damian]

You can tell when there is threadjacking and when there isn't. A naturally progression from the original conversation is entirely different.

Like pornography.
One cannot define it but one can recognize it when one sees it.

 

[jazzeum]

Like pornography.
One cannot define it but one can recognize it when one sees it.

Damian may be thinking of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's concurring opinion in the Jacobellis v. Ohio case in 1964 when he spoke of obscenity, to wit:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it."

 

[damian]

Damian may be thinking of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's concurring opinion in the Jacobellis v. Ohio case in 1964 when he spoke of obscenity, to wit:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it."

I knew it was an American supreme court judge I was however unaware of his name and the exact quote.
I am obliged to Brad for supplying it.
I do like the quote.