Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Why is "hijacking" a thread such a heinous offense?.... It seems many if not most who stand accused of such a crime are in fact doing little more than expanding the discussion in ways the thread starter hadn't anticipated and/or may be uncomfortable with, though not strictly unrelated to the original topic.

Also, why is it that within a small net group such as S8, where we become acquainted with each other's online personalities and quirks over time, does it seem that certain of these personalities become offended again and again by others, though the various triggers and indiosyncrasies of said personalities should be familiar by now (and presumably taken with a proverbial "grain of salt" and recognition)? Just asking. Seems mostly like wasted energy to me.

I'm generally thrilled when someone "hijacks" my thread-- perhaps my writing touched a nerve, or my assertions will be challenged, or they inspired "branch discussions".... Severe personal attacks without substance or completely unrelated tangents are unwelcome, but I simply (calmly, I hope) point out such tactics and try to move on, or the mod steps in. If I feel the discussion is taken in a way I hadn't intended, though not strictly illegitimately, I reframe and repost. I never want to think of any thread of mine as some sort of holy cyber fiefdom where only I decide just how and where the discussion must go. No specific finger pointing here. All of us have seen examples of this if we've spent any appreciable time on internet message boards...

Anyway, just asking... (and observing)...

mnaz wrote:Why is "hijacking" a thread such a heinous offense?.... It seems many if not most who stand accused of such a crime are in fact doing little more than expanding the discussion in ways the thread starter hadn't anticipated and/or may be uncomfortable with, though not strictly unrelated to the original topic.

Well it's not heinous - but it is provocative (provoking). This is from the wikipedia definition of thread hijacking - emphasis added by me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_hijackingThread hijacking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thread hijacking is the act of trying to steer a web forum discussion thread off topic by discussing a subject entirely unrelated to the subject at hand.

While this can be an intentional act of trolling, it is often accidental - caused by other participants in the discussion responding to a throwaway remark, taking the thread off at a tangent to the original subject matter. The results, whilst sometimes humorous or otherwise interesting, often provoke a feeling of resentment from the author of the original post.

And it continues briefly on from there with info regarding thread Hijacking on a mailing list or newsgroup.

So that's one part of what your asking: hijacking (intentional or not) comes across as aggression; by provoking.

mnaz wrote: Also, why is it that within a small net group such as S8, where we become acquainted with each other's online personalities and quirks over time, does it seem that certain of these personalities become offended again and again by others, though the various triggers and indiosyncrasies of said personalities should be familiar by now (and presumably taken with a proverbial "grain of salt" and recognition)? Just asking. Seems mostly like wasted energy to me.

As the originator of that particular thread in question; this was a thread where I felt his actions were inappropriate and I needed to take action. To me, he was clearly out of line. I was sharing something that I held deep emotions over the subject and had made no secret of that fact either – it’s the very first line of my post. I when I found Jack’s words and actions towards me to be aggressively provoking (for the reasons I stated in my rant thread) it was not something I could take with "grain of salt" like I do most of the time when he taunts me.

So, knowing that he taunts, how he does, from past experiences – and knowing his preference of hijacking threads by provoking others to get into “Pie Fights” with him on the board (which is that wasted energy you referred to); and figuring (correctly) that he’d most likely disagree me about things (regardless) – which he did; I could tell where this was leading. So I took action. Not wanting this particular thread being disrupted by him in that way … I asked (and he cooperated) with moving and continuing our latest disagreement with each other over here in the fireplace section. He could have choosen not to cooperate and still continue posting in that thread - but he didn't, I appreciate that.

So - in the end, I don't think what happened between Jack and myself as wasted energy. Things didn't go as it usually do, new things were tried ... I don't see 'wasted energy' - I see work in progress.

mnaz wrote: I'm generally thrilled when someone "hijacks" my thread-- perhaps my writing touched a nerve, or my assertions will be challenged, or they inspired "branch discussions".... Severe personal attacks without substance or completely unrelated tangents are unwelcome, but I simply (calmly, I hope) point out such tactics and try to move on, or the mod steps in. If I feel the discussion is taken in a way I hadn't intended, though not strictly illegitimately, I reframe and repost. I never want to think of any thread of mine as some sort of holy cyber fiefdom where only I decide just how and where the discussion must go. No specific finger pointing here. All of us have seen examples of this if we've spent any appreciable time on internet message boards...

Anyway, just asking... (and observing)...

I'm not generally so thrilled when someone hijacks my thread; but I'm not so attached things that I can't flow with it, if it happens.

But you got it ... .."touched (touching) a nerve"..

Jack's style is challenging for me [more challenging than your own]; he takes intelligent, thoughtful insights [the things well worth continued discussions!] and then intermingle with other things; including unwanted and unwelcomed personal attacks created from unsubstantiated and completely unrelated tangents of his own creation. (aka: Bait) To complicate the matter he doesn't do it all the time, just often enough so as to be predictable [also (to me) annoying]; and most often [or so it seems to me] he seems to enjoy targeting me. Most of the time I see and take him as a pesky kid running around poking at people with his foil yelling ‘unguard!’

So what was so different about him doing this in this one particular thread, especially when I know and am used to him doing this to me in others?

whimsicaldeb wrote: This is happening where I live, and is deeply, deeply personal. I don't talk about it much because I get too emotional;

He choose to reach out and try and touch that nerve; his actions were (imo) deliberately provoking; to pick a fight; aimed to set things off with me and I resented that he would use that thread; a thread whose purpose was about memorials for peace and healing from the grief from losing someone you love as the place to do this. I resented his actions then, and I still do now.

Imo he was totally out of line and his actions inappropriate. Yes – those actions were intermingled with intelligent, thoughtful items that also deserve discussion [the need for better TV coverage on the subject] … but those comments do not justify his actions, his attempt to provoke my emotions in a thread I was already emotional about.

Yet even through all that, my deepest concern/desire was to not have this happen in a thread about memorials for peace, and healing of grief. I didn't want what this meant to me, getting contaminated with our "stuff."

….

...

Not everyone goes to a message board to challenge and/or provoke, some come to debate, some for conversation, some for both and people can sensitive and protective about many things (poetry/art) and yes - even their postings. People come to boards for many reasons. It's probably best remember that - and remind ourselves from time to time that not everyone is coming to the board for the same reasons we are.

For me S8 is a place a come to, to hang out. It’s like going to a coffee house and listening to poems and stories being told at the open mike, admiring the art on the walls and listening in on the other happenings (conversations or debates) at the other tables while sipping my brew. I don’t come to fight. I come to share things of interest and will talk about them with anyone else who is interested, but I don’t come to debate or tear an issue apart. So when someone comes up to me and throws down their gauntlet and banishes their foil with ‘Unguard!” I usually just smile and shake my head no; which on translate on a message board as a non-reply; or a reply only to the part I was noticing/taking interest in.


So hijacking a thread, like many things on a board, has many forms and meanings for each person: but hijacking a thread by itself isn’t “heinous” [hateful; odious; abominable; totally reprehensible;] - still, it is still something that is done/happens; and when it does it isn't always an admirable thing. It can provoke.

I hope my answers give you some interesting things to consider and thank you for asking. Typing this response out to you has helped me.

Deb said,

Jack's style is challenging for me [more challenging than your own]; he takes intelligent, thoughtful insights [the things well worth continued discussions!] and then intermingle with other things; including unwanted and unwelcomed personal attacks created from unsubstantiated and completely unrelated tangents of his own creation.

Wow. I don't read Jack's posts often enough or thoroughly enough to have ever noticed this, if he's really doing this. Are you sure this is just not your perception?

I just thought he rambled on about .... well... about... generally nothing or a whole lot of things and yeah, often off topic, but hey, I never thought about it as anything deliberate to disrupt a thread. Hmmm.

mnaz said

Why is "hijacking" a thread such a heinous offense?.... It seems many if not most who stand accused of such a crime are in fact doing little more than expanding the discussion in ways the thread starter hadn't anticipated and/or may be uncomfortable with, though not strictly unrelated to the original topic.

At some sites (AC is an example), they actually have a formal rule that going "OT" (off topic) is not acceptable. I always found that to be sort of odd. I mean in real life conversations, people go off on tangents, even change the subject.

I can see that "hijacking" (as Deb's wiki link points out), when it means someone is deliberately attempting to put themselves center stage and steer the conversation away from the topic the originating poster created, can make the thread-starter irritated sometimes. Especially if they really want to talk about a topic important to them and especially when unrelated posts are posted excessively and unnecessarily.

We don't have a rule about that here, of course. Well we don't have any rules here really... other than to respect each other.

Interesting topic, mnaz, as in a small community like this, we all need to get to know each other's styles and either accept them or talk about them if that helps us get along with each other better.

Having the "fireplace" as a place to vent and talk to each other when we perceive a problem is cool. I like it when people talk things out.

That said, I really don't read everything here and I'm sometimes baffled when people have an argument because I don't understand what started it. To be honest, I don't have time to read very much here. I read some but not even half of what's posted. But as you know, I'm a real fan of getting along so if it takes an argument to get to the point of acceptance or to clear up problems, cool!

-------

Also, if somebody says something deliberately offensive to anybody here, I'd hope they'd speak out immediately about it and tell the other person why they found their comment offensive. Sometimes offense isn't intended it's only perceived.

In real life, if somebody says something offensive to me, I always tell them to fuck off and die.

...

Doreen - interesting comments. I think you're a little (?) off target regarding Jack (soft) but then again, like you said - you don't really read everything so that's to be expected.

You said something interesting in passing, and mnaz - it happens to be the one other thing I forgot to include in my reply: (emphasis added by me):

doreen peri wrote: At some sites (AC is an example), they actually have a formal rule that going "OT" (off topic) is not acceptable. I always found that to be sort of odd. I mean in real life conversations, people go off on tangents, even change the subject.

It has to do with the differences between having a conversation with someone compared to having a debate with them. It's that 'challenge' factor. Well, there's this old quote:

"Debate is masculine;
conversation is feminine."
Amos Bronson Alcott
Concord Days - “May”

Not to be sexist - but it's accurate: guys like to challenge each, debate and compete with each other about anything and everything; and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But gals usually don't. That challenging aspect of debate/discussion is one of those things doesn't always transfer over well in mixed company. There are always exceptions of course, but I'm talking overall here.

So - it's interesting (to me) to note that here you are starting this thread talking about hijacking discussions in this thread; and here come myself and Doreen talking about meandering conversations (dialogues) with people.

I bring it up because these are two vastly different forms of communication that have vastly different rules of etiquette based on expectations. A lot depends upon the intent and expectation of the person who started the thread, compared to those who have come into the thread.

As and example: someone who starts a thread for discussion, or starts a thread meant primarily for passing along information (such as what I did) could get upset when it turns into a thread full of personal conversations that don't stay 'on topic.'

Here's a link to an oldie moldy article about the differences (if needed)
http://management.articlesarchive.net/d ... ssion.html

Anyway - I think the differences in style as well as expectations contribute to the overall problem. If one person is trying to have a discussion and the other is trying to have a dialogue.. It can be an disaster!
...

...

Jack - Stop harassing me. Stop twisting what I’ve said (what I say), and stop spreading lies about me

welcome to community
sit down and make yourself at home until you step on someone's toes even if by accident

what a load of crap
and what does it amount to?
taking the voice of another and tossing it into the garbage simply because you don't personally like it

judge mentality
just another seedy reason to remain a misanthrope
whatever happened to live and let live?
whatever happened to kindness?
the benefit of the doubt?

Good Christ!


Hijack my thread? I welcome it! Diversity! Bring it on! The weaving and winding of personal thought, hit upon, brought upon by an initial post. Seized upon and run with. Oh how criminal! Perish the thought...perish the thought process. Quash quash quash. Despicable.

and the gleaners came and could not recognize the chaff from the wheat and so wandered off emptyhanded...again.

See my thread above, also posted in the Fireplace.

It has to do with the differences between having a conversation with someone compared to having a debate with them. It's that 'challenge' factor. Well, there's this old quote:

"Debate is masculine;
conversation is feminine."
Amos Bronson Alcott
Concord Days - “May”

So are you saying it's a girly website? Good point, but then why entertain debate at all? Seems hypocritical to me to encourage polite debate and then slam people for being off topic.

And who gets to judge what's off topic, anyhow? Your discussion of something could inspire a related discussion of something else. It DOES happen in real life. It happened today. Someone was making complaints about the attendance policy at work -- why charge an occurrence point against my record if I have sick time to use? ( I think she used to work for a unionized company). I said, "This company at least provides you with a separate bank of sick time and another for vacation. Most companies don't." Related topics, but not the same topics.

Going off topic is a good way to get to the heart of the matter, too. In this case, the subtopic was "injustice" as in, "I am getting screwed." I countered with something related that proved that, comparatively, she wasn't getting screwed.

Anyways I am all for debate, all for discussion, all for going off topic when it yields interesting things (and when sincere and not a deliberate troll-type hijacking it usually does). I am not for blatant put downs, but lately on certain places, "put down" can get either a BROAD interpretation or a very narrow one depending on who's doing the interpreting.

One other comment: Some people are unintentionally selfish in internet discussion. I could well be one of those people. I have suspected myself on a number of occasions. When I see it in others it's always easy to spot. That can lead to hijacking ... and that kind of hijacking is very provoking ... I know what Deb means.

The way I see things is any topic introduced on a public forum is open for discussion to the same public that reads it. When a person singles out another person's comments in a disagreeable or harsh manner, doesn't this become a private matter? And if we agree, would it not be more useful to the public in tune to said topic, that the disagreement (should it become personal) be taken to the 'personal message' level?

It's not really becoming to read or participate in any discussion when one person is at another person's throat... it's too personal. I'd much rather take it to PM than make it public.

Just my passing thoughts....

Cecil? I wish I'd said that.

I try to stay outa stuff that isn't my business.

But then it got to the point where I felt awful about the whole thing and had to put a stop to it but didn't know how.

Had I said, "Please take this to private messages" it would have been best.

Sighhh

abcrystcats wrote:See my thread above, also posted in the Fireplace.

It has to do with the differences between having a conversation with someone compared to having a debate with them. It's that 'challenge' factor. Well, there's this old quote:

"Debate is masculine;
conversation is feminine."
Amos Bronson Alcott
Concord Days - “May”

So are you saying it's a girly website? Good point, but then why entertain debate at all? Seems hypocritical to me to encourage polite debate and then slam people for being off topic.

"So are you saying it's a girly website? Good point, but then why entertain debate at all?"

That's not what I was saying - but now that you mention it, it rather is a 'girly' website.

What I was using the quote for was to point out the differences in communication that we use with each other: man to man; woman to woman: men to woman - the communications styles differ. The style and tones of communicating in thread are usually set by the poster; but can end up changing as things go on.

Example: when a couple of people are talking about something in a thread and the conversation is meandering along ... and then another person comes into that conversation to challenge (wanting to debate) ... it causes problems.

Challenging/debating and having a conversation are two different forms of communication and don't always mix well. Anytime the two get blended it's provoking; (in many ways). The people having conversation could feel as if their conversation was being 'hijacked.'

...

mtmynd wrote:The way I see things is any topic introduced on a public forum is open for discussion to the same public that reads it.

Well that's the key right there, and that's where I made my mistake. I had taken a subject that was deeply personal to me - that I was sensitive about, and put it up on a public discussion board. I should have never posted that post, even though it was a subject worthy of discussion... I wasn't detached enough and I knew it. Ironically, in doing so (posting it anyway) I went against one of my own posting rules and handed myself a tough reminder of why I had a rule like that in the first place.

This is the fireplace, right?

What's so frickin "girly" about this website?

lol

I don't get it.

Go ahead and flame me for arguing with ya!

No girly website here! Nope! This is a muliti-sex website.

Male, female, and anything in between.

Hell, dogs and cats can post if they want.

And birds.

tweeet

lol.. i crack myself up.

Sorry ladies, I don't get the girly thing.

What's it MEAN, "girly" website? hmmmm?

doreen peri wrote:What's it MEAN, "girly" website? hmmmm?

Oh … it doesn’t mean anything, nothing important or that matters anyway.

Doreen and Deb:

What's so frickin "girly" about this website?

Sorry, I was actually referring to the other website, not this one. I should have made that more clear.

Also, I retract the word "girly." It's insulting to women and I used it in a way that implied that women don't debate, and that's totally incorrect: they do. It was a very poor choice of words.

I am not sure where people draw the line between conversation and debate. It's not clear to me where you make the distinction.

If by "conversation" you mean that people are agreeing with one another and merely commenting or elaborating on the fine points of something, that is not very interesting to me. Why go to a website to discuss anything if everyone agrees on nearly everything and just has "conversation?" That is what I meant by "girly," that is the other website ( or how it is becoming under the constant censorship and bannings of dissidents), and that is BORING.

Why not have a lively debate?

It doesn't need to get personal.

It doesn't need to get trashy.

I agree that personal and trashy stuff should be eliminated.

As far as "hijacking" is concerned, that is something that can get broadly or narrowly interpreted if built into the rules of a website. Conversations and/or debates don't always stick to topic in real life, so why impose this rule on websites? I agree with that.

I will also say that some of what we are calling "hijacking" happens because people are selfish and like to have the light focused on them. Other hijacking happens because people are uncomfortable with a topic and don't want to discuss it or see it discussed by others. Some hijacking happens because someone has a troll-like nature and just enjoys smashing things for the thrill of seeing the breakage. I am sure there are plenty of other reasons too.

In any case, changing the subject is not a criminal offense. If people want to talk about the original subject, they will, no matter where the thread is carried by other participants. Trolls should be recognized and eliminated, but I have seen the "troll" personality broadly interpreted too -- to where "troll" means anyone that disagrees with the webmaster or his/her minions.

I don't think it causes problems at all when two people are having a "conversation", it is meandering along, and then someone else comes in wanting to debate the topic. Websites aren't private, they are public access places where anyone is allegedly welcome to join in. I think if you want to have a conversation and not include others, that is when you should use PMs, not the other way around.

I should really go find out what you said, mtmynd, because it all sounds very interesting, but I don't necessarily agree that you should have to be objective about something before you post about it. Reading carefully, it sounds like something havng to do with another specific member here (??) Maybe that should have been taken to PMs .....

welll, i know that i challenged knip
on the war in Irak, man
he said those guys in the military poll who said they wanted out of Iraq
were probably just homesick,
mercy,
I told him that GI's have a point of view,
and that we need prescience in running the military,
and so he signed out, peace, man,
so where did that conversation go?

My goodness.
I remember the thread started by the big red A
"payback is a bitch"
ran thru the entire Israeli air war ontu Lebanon,
mercy,
hey, but no adolescaent namby pamby bullshit,
like yes, respect

where is Aretha when we need her?

By the way, i just read through all that WD/ST conflict (what's left of it) and I too am unable to see how the disagreement started or what he said that provoked such a reaction -- but -- I assume a lot of it has been removed, too.

I really don't have a problem with someone pulling off on a (related) tangent, myself. Big whoop. Let's say their topic is more interesting to people than the one I started .... that's GREAT! People should talk about what they want to talk about. If I am not interested then there is no need for me to keep replying.

I was checking something out and wondering if it's possible for someone to hijack a forum (lol) by being the dominant poster, and by keeping others from discussing anything else by burying their topics this way. It's just an idea, but let's say you keep posting stuff over and over and over, and very few people reply or even read your topics .... isn't it time to reconsider what you're doing? After all, insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

One thing I like about here is that people have their own exclusive forums as well as the "public" ones. Some of the private forums have developed a fairly large following, others not. Mine is pretty slowing moving, but so what? I post on the public ones to interact with others ....