Thread Jacking

[Fierce Critter]

Why do I personally hate thread jacking? And I'm not talking about when a topic such as "depression" takes a relational off-ramp into subjects such as manic/depression, or medications, etc. That makes sense, and is still respectfully related to the initial topic. That said:

1) It's rude/disrespectful to the person who originally created the thread - You know if you're doing it that it's not cool. Don't pretend it is. What you're saying may be funny/clever/etc but it's NOT respectful or considerate.

2) It's distracting - It'd be nice to enter a thread on a subject - from serious subjects about politics & religion to "fun" subjects about bands, make-up, etc. - and actually be able to discuss or read about what the thread was supposed to be about.

3) It's a time waster - it has been suggested that a person can just skip threads they don't want to read. Ummm... in order to know whether or not a post is on- or off-topic, it has to be READ. One or two posts is bad enough. But some posts go on for 10, 20+ off-topic before you find one that's on-topic, or before you realize there aren't any more on-topic posts, and you're the next person to post one. Unless we're all blessed with ESP, that ain't gonna happen.

4) It's unnecessary - there are threads created just for that kind of banter. Such as the DGN Cafe thread. Using that would be more respectful to people who are actually interested in the topic at hand, or the person who created the post. And it wouldn't bear any complaints, 'cause that's what those threads are FOR.

5) It gets old - we all know that a good number of people on this board are clever as hell. We all know that MemberX is hot for MemberQ. We all know that "___________ was great". Yawn.

Now, here's what I expect to get as some responses to this, so let me save time & trouble:

I threadjacked once. It was great.

Yeah, threadjacking is ___________(insert adverb/adjective here). But man, would I love to ______________(repeat adverb/adjective) with MemberX!!!!

I ___________(insert adverb/adjective here) with MemberX once. It was great.

I'm MemberX. And MemberQ can ___________(insert adverb/adjective) me any time. A-winka.

Critter, you're just ___________(insert negative adverb/adjective). Get over it.

I inserted an adverb/adjective once. It was great.

Threadjacking rules!!!!

:fear :pirate :devil :doh :whistling :sleeping

[Saephyr]

Ok so Fierce...what kind of a reply do you WANT to get with this one? I just have no clue.

I don't EVER intentionally do rude shit to anyhone's posts BUT I have strayed off topic, so what conversations do that all the time do they not? So is that a RULE or just a personal preference?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

It sucks.

And yeah i don't really mean something like a post that starts out about subject A veering off a bit into subject B which is somewhat related. Its the total , intentional subject changes just meant to be sort of wise-assed remarks that tend to ruin or "disrupt" a decent conversation. Its just a difficult thing to enforce as everyones opinion as to what is a "blatant" threadjack and what is just a subject shift is often a grey area.

Actually, depending on interpretation and severity of the "threadjacking" it could be viewed as a direct violation of the DGN rule:

Rule No. 1.

Play Nice. Unlike a lot of boards, we like to try and keep ours jerk-free.

Example: Blatantly Disruptive Posts - Many threads change subjects during the course of conversation , but deliberately ruining topics that were intended to be serious discussion, on a regular basis, is a sure sign of a jerk.

I once had a half worked out idea that the topic poster could use a certian posticon or just state some sort of request that means "i want this post to stay on topic" and is basicly a request for the moderators to give it special attention. As opposed to a topic that is createed with the intention of being a more generalized just shoot-the-shit type post.

Often posters do want the conversation to ramble around and they just mean their topic posts as a jumping off point so "on topic" for some, can mean a much broader subject range than we might typcially think.

[creatureofthenyte]

I say someone should create a thread, and name it Jack. Then re-direct all the threadjackers there!

[Saephyr]

SUre, I would think that was a GIVEN type thing amoungst us all.

[Fierce Critter]

Ok so Fierce...what kind of a reply do you WANT to get with this one? I just have no clue.

I don't EVER intentionally do rude shit to anyhone's posts BUT I have strayed off topic, so what conversations do that all the time do they not? So is that a RULE or just a personal preference?

As I said...

"I'm not talking about when a topic such as "depression" takes a relational off-ramp into subjects such as manic/depression, or medications, etc. That makes sense, and is still respectfully related to the initial topic."

I stray somewhat off-topic, too. We all, I believe, can start with a given topic and find ourselves posting something somewhat related, but not necessarily 100% to-the-letter of what was originally brought up. That isn't what I am referring to.

As for what kind of reply I want to get - how about on-topic, mature input as to why someone thinks threadjacking is o.k., or not o.k., or how people deal with it, or don't deal with it, how it affects your time spent on DGN, etc.

As to whether it's a rule or personal preference, Troy partially covered that in his response. I'll repeat from his quote from Rule #1:

"Blatantly Disruptive Posts - Many threads change subjects during the course of conversation , but deliberately ruining topics that were intended to be serious discussion, on a regular basis, is a sure sign of a jerk."

Is that a given amongst us all? If it were, I wouldn't have created this thread.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Theres another issue, often its not totally clear to some people (maybe they are just less savvy than others, maybe the topic post just isnt clear, could be various reasons) dont really "know" what exactly the topic subject is fully. Which can make it difficult for them to stay on topic even if they want to.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I say someone should create a thread, and name it Jack. Then re-direct all the threadjackers there!

Thats actually one of the intentions of this post here:

http://www.detroitgothic.net/index.php?showtopic=20

to try and syphon off some of the "rambling randomness" posts.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

OBSERVATION - About the topic, may not be completely on topic - OBSERVATION

Did Troy just "Jack" this thread to a different category?

- END OBSERVATION -

In what way? Not upset or anything im curious , i think everything i've said is pretty on-topic.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I was referring to it being "physically" jacked from one category to another on the forum.

Oh. Actually that was probably a mistake. I was thinking this topic was "threadjacking as it exist on DGN" but i think critter might have meant it more broadly, not nessisarly "just" about on DGN so i moved it back here.

[Paper Hearts]

Example:

Referring to the 'Thou shalt not' thread, earlier, this topic was started in very comedic spirit. Just because a moderator comes on and posts something serious, on it afterwards, in all due respect, Troy, doesn't mean that the spirit of the thread has changed forever. Secondly, I wasn't the one who took the post from 'Thou shalt not take thy lord's name in vain', to 'where does God live?'. -You and one other member had already taken it there. Whether I return to the original spirit of the post and post something possibly humorous, by talking about God living somewhere strange (probably less strange than in a parallell dimension, and possibly less humorous, I would like to suggest), it's still well within the normal course of the "conversation", and not a path, once again, that I had initiated.

On an unrelated note, I don't mind a bit of humor interjected into a thread i begin. I don't mind a lot of humor interjected into my threads. I like it. And it's a normal part of conversation. If you're not a very fun loving person or it's a very serious subject for you, have the decency to realize that you should tell people that at the begining post.

I don't mind the little jokes that go on here. Truly, if people here took this too seriously all the time I wouldn't be involved.

[BrassFusion]

There is no line between an off-shoot conversation and a threadjack. It is and always will be an arbitrary gray zone.

That's why a blanket rule disallowing "threadjacking" of any kind would be moot, and I assume that's why we don't have one. To my understanding, Rule #1 addresses people who habitually introduce meaningless crap in serious topics.

Habitually. That's hardly a general ban of "threadjacking."

And if it's necessary that every conversation one starts or joins stays within what he deems to be acceptable bounds of the original topic, maybe he should spend more time talking to himself. Those are the only conversations one can be in complete control of.

[Rayne]

A normal conversation wanders.

When you start talking to someone, do you continue to talk abouthat one subject then all the sudden just stop. You can't say anything else unless it's regarding that subject? Not usually.

For example ... We could start talking about cars and somehow through the course of the conversation, also talk about work, clubs, shoes and end up at cats. It's just how the world works. That's how communication works.

I, myself, don't mind any of what "threadjacking" goes on here, whether it be 2 posts or 222 pages ... if I don't want to read it, I don't have to. And sometimes I won't. It's all up to me.

I create my own DGN expierience. If I got an issue with that, I have only myself to blame because I can control what I read ... but I can't control what others say.

[phee]

I create my own DGN expierience. If I got an issue with that, I have only myself to blame because I can control what I read ... but I can't control what others say.

Intelligent statement

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Example:

Referring to the 'Thou shalt not' thread, earlier, this topic was started in very comedic spirit. Just because a moderator comes on and posts something serious, on it afterwards, in all due respect, Troy, doesn't mean that the spirit of the thread has changed forever.

That thread was meant as a humor post? I must have misinterpreted it. (note my previous statement of the difficulty of knowing sometimes exactly what the heck the actual "topic" is meant to be)

But as i interpreted that specific "thou shalt not" thread, as a serious topic... The shifting of it to a more broad subject about god in general would be, more of the "topic shift" concept , rather than a blatant screwing over of the topic.

I'm fully aware that moderating threadjacking is in many cases might not practical due to ... well several of the reasons i stated above. But there is a clear difference i think between a topic shift... and true "threadjacking"

The fact that we ALL do it at some point or another, even without realizing it sometimes might make actual enforcement of threadjacking a daunting task just due to the sheer volume of topic changes.

[Fierce Critter]

As Troy keeps reminding here, and I have done as well - we're talking blatent, obvious changes in topic. Including taking a specific topic and turning it into a mess of general banter.

That shouldn't be hard to understand. It doesn't fall outside the realm of common sense & consideration.

1) Regarding statements that "natural conversation goes from topic to topic to topic" - very true. However, on a message board, we have the ability to start a whole new thread on new subjects. And if "general banter" is the nature of the threadjack, threads exist SOLELY for that purpose.

2) "If it's a very serious subject for you, have the decency to realize that you should tell people that at the begining post."

I would counter that it makes MORE sense that "decency" falls on the shoulders of (s)he who would do the threadjacking. Doesn't it make a LOT more mature sense - shouldn't it be understood - that it's MORE considerate and respectful to NOT threadjack threads, and that rather than having to constantly post disclaimers asking that that not occur within threads, that people who would threadjack take threadjacking to threads that exist SOLELY for that purpose?

3) Just because someone has a problem with rabid threadjacking doesn't, in any way, make them a spoil-sport. What one might consider is that said people just understand that the onus of keeping derailment at a minimum falls on the shoulders of they who would commit the act.

Little jokes here and there - cool. Thread after thread after thread after thread of jokes or other totally unrelated banter? Other threads exist SOLELY for that purpose.

What I'm hearing is that people just plain want to be able to threadjack anytime, anywhere, ad infinitum, and are offended & feel "put upon" at the thought that they should, in any way, restrict themselves or move their commentary to a more appropriate conversation.

Sorry, but that just strikes me as lazy & puerile.

[Fierce Critter]

-- Attempt to inject humor please don't reply to this post --

How about them tigers?

Actually, this is another thing I don't quite get.

What's with the apparent need for EVERY post to include humor?

Humor's great. I've got more than one post in the "Funny Quotes" thread myself. Despite what might be thought about me due to threads like this, I'm not opposed to a good laugh.

But I don't recall there being any sort of mandate for every thread on the board to include humor.

[BrassFusion]

Some of us are just happy-go-lucky people.

[phee]

Some of us are just happy-go-lucky people.

Kinda what I was thinking

[phee]

I try to inject humor when I fear that a thread is starting to border "too serious". Humor lightens situations. I don't want to see people fighting or worse "flaming" posts on here or even in real life. Hence, why I try to keep on the "humor/good nature" side of things.

Well said

[Fierce Critter]

"Happy go lucky" or uncomfortable with serious subjects period?

I'm very capable of not losing control of my comfort - or emotions - in a serious subject, or even a heated debate. And I know there are plenty of people out there who are the same. Without the need to throw in giggly commentary.

I wonder at the real psychology going on behind those who feel the need to do so.

[Paper Hearts]

Humor is often a part of conversation. But I can't remember a time when some one posted a knock-knock joke on some one else's 'Death in the Family' thread. It's just not happened. People can't tell if you're on your computer crying your eyes out while posting a topic about 'Nature's Grandest Oven-Mits' (or something). If you say to people--'okay, damn it, this is serious.' then people will return decency and consider your topic with all the grave, humorless intensity of death which it so unapparently deserves. It's like a game of tennis: you bat it to them and they bat it back to you.

For the record, Phee and I do have a 'Serious' thread for those who want to use it.

[Rayne]

"Happy go lucky" or uncomfortable with serious subjects period?

I assure you I am just the happy-go-lucky type. I think Phee can back me up here. I see humour in almost everything ... but I can talk about serious things seriously as well.

I moderated AOL's forums for years ... I found the easiest way to deter problems is humour.

[Rayne]

For the record, Phee and I do have a 'Serious' thread for those who want to use it.

Please refer here:

http://www.detroitgothic.net/index.php?showtopic=5818

[Fierce Critter]

You know, threadjacking isn't just an issue in "deathly serious" threads.

It goes on all over the place.

Whether the subject is someone's thoughts of suicide, or what color dress a person should buy, or whatever - it all seems "fair game" anymore.

I guess the "majority rule" on this is people just want to do whatever they want wherever, and chaos rules.

I'm no fan of overly moderated boards, either. But seems to me DGN members are thought to be a bit more... considerate than that.