Posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:41:47
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 16:57:54
> Friends,
> It is written here that Dr. Hsiung responded to a member's post that wrote,[...no more replies...] with that he thinks that it is more welcoming to not use that phrase.
> I agree with Dr. Hsiung in that for someone to write that {no more} replies be posted could be an inappropriate phrase to write.
> But there are other possibilities that could occur that could have a want for another to ask that others keep in mind what the innitiator of the thread's intended destination is so that the thread does not go off-plan to another destination, (hijacking the thread), for I think that it is more civl to start a new thread if the topic is one that could cause the innitiator's destination to be turned in a different direction.
> I think that it could be more welcoming here if threads were not {hijacked}, but I do not know of any statement in the FAQ here about it specifically.
> On another note, I think that in the example given in this thread that it could be more welcoming, as Dr. Hsiung writes, if there was a section in the FAQ here specifically to define what constitutes {hijacking} in this forum.
> If I was asked how I would make a rule that could be {well-defined and applied equally} to define {hijacking}, the following;
> Hijacking occurs when:
> A. Another poster attempts to {shift the focus}to another topic that is a new destination from the innitiator of the thread's destination
> B. Another poster belittles the innitiator of the thread so that now the focus is on the poster rather than the poster's intended destination
> C. Another poster posts accusative content so as to cause the initiator to defend him/herself from the accusation so that there is a delay in the progress to the destination.
> D. Another poster posts irrelevant material that has the potential to {cloud} the issues {smoke-screening}.
> E. Another poster posts what could constitute {scapegoating}, so that others could be hampered to post because they could feel that now the subject could be to the poster's intent.{witch-hunting}
> F.other relevant examples
> Lou
>
>
>Lou I believe B, C, and E would be outlawed under the civility guidelines.
A and D involve making negative judgements about another poster's motives or intentions and could possibly lead him/her to feel put down so that would violate the civility guidelines to accuse another poster of this behaviour wouldn't it?
Would you like the deputies to pass judgement on relevance or would that be left to the initiator of the post? There are boards which consider the thread to be the property of the initiator and his judgement prevails but that would be a departure for Babble wouldn't it? On the other hand nobody but the initiator would know what the subject was in his mind so how could the deputies adequately judge? I suppose they could redirect posts within the board. Would that be something to be handled with Bob's new complaint forms? Would a request to redirect off topic posts count as one of the three requests to check a post or would there be a new limit for those requests?
But the term Hijacking has a bit of an accusatory ring to it doesn't it? Perhaps that could be rephrased.
I understand that you would prefer to control the topics addressed in your threads. Maybe there is some way to do it if it means a lot to you.
poster:zazenducky
thread:693061
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/693101.html