Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 20:59:46
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:41:47
zazenducky,
You wrote,[...control the topics..in your thread...some way to do it...].
I responded to Dr. Hsiung's statement to the poster that asked,[...no more replies...].
I agree with Dr. Hsiung about that in relation to his writing that it would be more welcoming to not use that phrase.
The topic as I see it is an administrative one in relation to the innitiators of a thread in relation to if they have some type of control of the content.
The usual and commonly refered to word ,"hijacking" in internet parlance refers to the control being directed to a different destination that was intended by the innitiator of the thread. In this case here, the poster could have been trying to direct the thread to {close} or be {locked} or {halted} by writing {...no more replies...}.
Now the poster that wanted {no more replies} was not IMO being uncivil, and Dr. Hsiung did not write that the poster was uncivil, but on the other hand, the poster's plea to have {...no more replies...} was a request for others to not do something that they are permitted to do and could constitute "hijacking" if the definition was that the post caused the thread to go in a different direction as in this case, to close {...no more replies...}.
In the issue here about {control} of the topic by the innitiator, I would like to see a section in the FAQ defining "hijacking" in this forum and when a new thread could be started verses posting what could constitute "hijacking" here.
I do not think that it is uncivil to post what could direct the innitiator's plan, and would only see it reasonable that a post that has the potential to be considered to constitute "hijacking", have the poster start a new thread. This could mean that the post is redacted from the thread and placed on the end of that board as a new thread. In the case at hand, if this was policy here, the post with [...no more replies...] would betaken out and placed at the bottom of the page as a new thread and others could comment on the aspect of {no more replies} while the others continued inthe discussion of the original thread.
In summery, your question to me about a way to control the content of the thread by the innitiator, IMO could be done as I have written here. I do not think that it is uncivil to post what is not relevant to the innitiator's direction, but OTOH, I think that more support could be obtained if the diverting post was redacted and placed to start a new thread.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:693061
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/693152.html