Thread Hijacking and Staying On Topic

[swansont]

We've had a spate of discussion recently where the conversation has strayed all over the place, making it exceedingly difficult to follow the discussion and sometime choking the dialogue that was supposed to be the focus of the thread. It's hard to resist answering a question that's asked; that's why many of us are here. And you may be like me, not really aware of which thread you're in once you're immersed on thinking about the post you are reading. To some extent that's expected, and we live with it. Sometimes a thread has run its course with regard to the initial question, and it's a natural flow to follow up, and the thread starter has a lot of leeway to direct the course of the discussion.

 

But if you did not start the thread, especially if you are in the speculations section, you have to make a serious assessment of any question being asked that is not directed at the originator, asking for clarification of the conjecture. If someone, for example, has introduced a speculations thread claiming quantum mechanics is all wrong, you should not use this as an opportunity to ask questions about entanglement, or the particle-in-a-box, or any other aspect of QM. Responses to speculations must be from mainstream science, and if you have questions about that science, open up a new thread in the appropriate section to ask your questions. The discussion in the thread has to be related to what's in the OP — the thread-starter gets to decide what the thread is about, not you.

 

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

Guilty as charged, Your Honour. I forget which section I'm in sometimes. I do endeavour to ask questions that try to help the OP.by putting a different slant on the topic.

[Robittybob1]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93472-gravitational-lens-and-gravitational-waves-question/

 

Who hijacked this thread and when did it happen? Was it Dan's question in #5 when he asked another question that was not in the OP?

Everyone joins in the new discussion on the new topic not covered in the OP.

[swansont]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93472-gravitational-lens-and-gravitational-waves-question/

 

Who hijacked this thread and when did it happen? Was it Dan's question in #5 when he asked another question that was not in the OP?

Everyone joins in the new discussion on the new topic not covered in the OP.

 

 

DanMP hijacked the discussion when he introduced a speculation in a mainstream thread. That's specifically called out in the rules. (in 2.10 "Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.") That was split off into a new thread.

 

The OP thanked us and declared that his/her questions had been answered, and post #5 was a question within the topic of the thread.

 

What you need to consider here is that behavior in mainstream discussions and discussion in (or regarding) speculations are not the same.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

DanMP hijacked the discussion when he introduced a speculation in a mainstream thread. That's specifically called out in the rules. (in 2.10 "Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.") That was split off into a new thread.

 

The OP thanked us and declared that his/her questions had been answered, and post #5 was a question within the topic of the thread.

 

What you need to consider here is that behavior in mainstream discussions and discussion in (or regarding) speculations are not the same.

If the rules say "Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking." then introducing a new idea is not hijacking either then unless it can be determined to be a "pet theory".

I can see the value of the "pet theory rule" but just a new idea/question or misunderstanding about the topic being discussed is hardly a pet theory.

It is a bit hard to do a post mortem on that particular thread as it was split and then the split was split again so we lose the order of events. But once the OP had signed off in #4 does the thread then become open for related discussion?

What and who then determines what other related topic questions can be asked?

[swansont]

If the rules say "Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking." then introducing a new idea is not hijacking either then unless it can be determined to be a "pet theory".

I can see the value of the "pet theory rule" but just a new idea/question or misunderstanding about the topic being discussed is hardly a pet theory.

If you aren't familiar enough with the material to know if your idea is mainstream or not, you shouldn't be offering it up as a solution. You should be opening a new thread to discuss it.

 

But you should know if you came up with it or not.

 

Whether it's a misunderstandiung becomes clear after a time, which is why posts are not always split right away. If the poster rejects correction by people who know, then we know it's a pet theory. And if the conversation persists, then it needs to be moved.

 

It is a bit hard to do a post mortem on that particular thread as it was split and then the split was split again so we lose the order of events. But once the OP had signed off in #4 does the thread then become open for related discussion?

What and who then determines what other related topic questions can be asked?

The moderators evaluate the questions, often via a report someone filed, and the input from resident experts is considered, which my be in the form of their responses within a thread.

 

The order of events can be reconstructed, to some extent and if need be, by the time and date stamp on the posts.

[Robittybob1]

If you aren't familiar enough with the material to know if your idea is mainstream or not, you shouldn't be offering it up as a solution. You should be opening a new thread to discuss it.

 

But you should know if you came up with it or not.

 

Whether it's a misunderstandiung becomes clear after a time, which is why posts are not always split right away. If the poster rejects correction by people who know, then we know it's a pet theory. And if the conversation persists, then it needs to be moved.

 

The moderators evaluate the questions, often via a report someone filed, and the input from resident experts is considered, which my be in the form of their responses within a thread.

 

The order of events can be reconstructed, to some extent and if need be, by the time and date stamp on the posts.

What time is stamped on the posts? Is that USA time? or is it my NZT? #6 shows me it was "Posted Today, 11:08 AM" so I have feeling all the times will displayed to different people according to their local time.

 

I'm sure I was misunderstanding Shapiro Time Delay and that was the root cause of the issue. That STD was the topic of discussion along with other related topics, so did no one realise I was mistaken? Shapiro Time Delay is definitely not a pet theory of mine.

[iNow]

And now this thread has been hijacked. Seriously... You couldn't script this.

[Robittybob1]

And now this thread has been hijacked. Seriously... You couldn't script this.

Not really when you read the last post in the thread "Banned/Suspended Users"

 

 

Robbitybob1's ability to create content has been removed for 2 days, so that he may contemplate how to stay on-topic and refrain from hijacking threads.

Edit: this has been upgraded to a full suspension

The topic feels very personal to me.

I was misunderstanding what Shapiro time delay was about, and from that I was blocked from posting, so I made a complaint, and then my status was upgraded to full suspension. All for a misunderstanding.

There needs to some allowance for a genuine misunderstanding in the rules.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Robittybob1

[iNow]

Exactly. Different thread. This isn't rocket science.

[Robittybob1]

Exactly. Different thread. This isn't rocket science.

I for one don't understand that sort of language, sorry.

 

I'll repeat my concern about the rules on hijacking. "There needs to some allowance for a genuine misunderstanding in the rules."

Not every stray question or comment is hijacking. There is such a thing as a misunderstanding. That is completely different to an insertion of a pet theory into a thread.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

What time is stamped on the posts? Is that USA time? or is it my NZT? #6 shows me it was "Posted Today, 11:08 AM" so I have feeling all the times will displayed to different people according to their local time.

The important thing is you can still place them in order according to the time stamp. You do understand the linear nature of time, right? Things happen in a certain order?

 

I'm sure I was misunderstanding Shapiro Time Delay and that was the root cause of the issue. That STD was the topic of discussion along with other related topics, so did no one realise I was mistaken? Shapiro Time Delay is definitely not a pet theory of mine.

YOUR hijack was of a different nature than Dan's. The thread was moved to speculations because of his pet theory that Shapiro delay is the cause of the oscillations . But you continued to ask about Shapiro delay. So I will reiterate, for perhaps the fourth freaking time:

 

There are three things you can do when responding in speculations: defend the proposal, ask questions to clarify the proposal, or post accepted physics to disprove the proposal. That's it. If you don't agree with the proposal but can't contradict it, you have nothing to discuss. Don't post anything at all.

 

YOUR hijack was moved back to mainstream physics, because you kept asking about Shapiro delay, but that thread was not the place to be asking about it. (see above for the three things you can do). IOW, if you're in the speculations forum, focus on the topic of speculation. If you're in a mainstream thread, focus on the mainstream topic. Don't jump back and forth.

I'll repeat my concern about the rules on hijacking. "There needs to some allowance for a genuine misunderstanding in the rules."

 

We allow for that. but we don't allow a misunderstanding OF the rules, when it's persistent and by someone who has been here long enough to know better. This went through the proper progression — comments, them moderator notes, and more moderator notes and finally a suspension. Even then, it was just the loss of posting, but you responded by abusing the PM system and kept on sending them after you were told to stop. You don't modify your behavior in response to anything moderators say. We won't put up with that for long.

 

You weren't warned and suspended because you misunderstood something under discussion. It was because you did not follow the rules regarding where to post your questions. Basically, you interrupted the conversation that was going on. Repeatedly. Which is a long-standing problem.

[Robittybob1]

The important thing is you can still place them in order according to the time stamp. You do understand the linear nature of time, right? Things happen in a certain order?

 

YOUR hijack was of a different nature than Dan's. The thread was moved to speculations because of his pet theory that Shapiro delay is the cause of the oscillations . But you continued to ask about Shapiro delay. So I will reiterate, for perhaps the fourth freaking time:

 

There are three things you can do when responding in speculations: defend the proposal, ask questions to clarify the proposal, or post accepted physics to disprove the proposal. That's it. If you don't agree with the proposal but can't contradict it, you have nothing to discuss. Don't post anything at all.

 

YOUR hijack was moved back to mainstream physics, because you kept asking about Shapiro delay, but that thread was not the place to be asking about it. (see above for the three things you can do). IOW, if you're in the speculations forum, focus on the topic of speculation. If you're in a mainstream thread, focus on the mainstream topic. Don't jump back and forth.

 

We allow for that. but we don't allow a misunderstanding OF the rules, when it's persistent and by someone who has been here long enough to know better. This went through the proper progression — comments, them moderator notes, and more moderator notes and finally a suspension. Even then, it was just the loss of posting, but you responded by abusing the PM system and kept on sending them after you were told to stop. You don't modify your behavior in response to anything moderators say. We won't put up with that for long.

 

You weren't warned and suspended because you misunderstood something under discussion. It was because you did not follow the rules regarding where to post your questions. Basically, you interrupted the conversation that was going on. Repeatedly. Which is a long-standing problem.

That is your argument. I read it and think you still didn't realise I had a misunderstanding about the nature of Shapiro delay which was the question being discussed in Dan's thread. I read your issues but I still didn't know what you meant. So I repeated my question. Even the rules say I can "ask questions to clarify the proposal," and that is what I was doing in fact even if I was asking the wrong question due to my misunderstanding.

PM abuse claim is wrong too for I was just making a justifiable complaint.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Phi for All]

Abuse isn't tolerated much when it's all volunteers giving of their time. You are far more trouble than you're worth, even as a negative example.

[Robittybob1]

Abuse isn't tolerated much when it's all volunteers giving of their time. You are far more trouble than you're worth, even as a negative example.

I have never abused anyone. What trouble have I caused? All I have been doing here is to learn and to discuss science.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

That is your argument.

 

 

With the agreement of at least one other mod. Suspensions require more than one moderator to agree.

 

I read it and think you still didn't realise I had a misunderstanding about the nature of Shapiro delay which was the question being discussed in Dan's thread.

It was quite clear you had a misunderstanding. What you (repeatedly) aren't getting here is that because you weren't directing questions at Dan about his proposal, they were off-topic for the thread. And as Dan as offering up his own pet theory, he is not the one to ask about the mainstream physics of the same name.

So I repeated my question.

Making the situation worse, as you were told not to do that.

I have never abused anyone. What trouble have I caused? All I have been doing here is to learn and to discuss science.

You have abused the rules. That you have not posted invective is a reason you have been cut some slack. But recently your posting has seen a rather dramatic uptick in frequency, which made your bad posting habits harder to bear, and moved you up the list of issues the mods need to deal with.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

With the agreement of at least one other mod. Suspensions require more than one moderator to agree.

 

It was quite clear you had a misunderstanding. What you (repeatedly) aren't getting here is that because you weren't directing questions at Dan about his proposal, they were off-topic for the thread. And as Dan as offering up his own pet theory, he is not the one to ask about the mainstream physics of the same name.

Making the situation worse, as you were told not to do that.

You have abused the rules. That you have not posted invective is a reason you have been cut some slack. But recently your posting has seen a rather dramatic uptick in frequency, which made your bad posting habits harder to bear, and moved you up the list of issues the mods need to deal with.

As I remember the issue was your statement "you need mass". So I asked you where does that mass have to be? Then you did nothing to clarify your own statement. Why did you skip that simple question?

[Strange]

As I remember the issue was your statement "you need mass". So I asked you where does that mass have to be? Then you did nothing to clarify your own statement. Why did you skip that simple question?

 

Perhaps because you were hijacking the thread? (As you are this one.)

[Robittybob1]

 

Perhaps because you were hijacking the thread? (As you are this one.)

I'm replying to points made by Swansont, so just let us sort this out please.

@Strange - Can you point out where in that split off thread I hijacked the thread?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93995-shapiro-or-shapiro-like-delay-of-gw-signals-split/

Edited March 23, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

As I remember the issue was your statement "you need mass". So I asked you where does that mass have to be? Then you did nothing to clarify your own statement. Why did you skip that simple question?

 

 

 

You remember incorrectly. The hijack portion was split off

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94016-questions-about-shapiro-delay-split-from-speculations-thread/

 

It is quite clear that your question about mass came AFTER I told you that you were hijacking the thread, and outlined what was appropriate and inappropriate. Which you ignored.

[Robittybob1]

It was a messy thread to say the least and when I went back through it and checked everyone's statements I found I was questioning some of the claims made by Mordred. They may have seemed out of line for that thread but they were prior claims made in it, so I was seeking clarification of those points.

When we were asked to come up with a model I asked, or proposed a way of modeling it, that seemed a bit a sideline but it was in response to Swansont asking us to model it.

 

As far as staying on topic:

When a whole document is introduced to backup an argument is that whole document then part of the discussion?

 

Wouldn't it need to be specified as to the relevant parts only?

[swansont]

I'm replying to points made by Swansont, so just let us sort this out please.

@Strange - Can you point out where in that split off thread I hijacked the thread?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93995-shapiro-or-shapiro-like-delay-of-gw-signals-split/

 

The hijacking started when you were asking Mordred things, rather than Dan, combined with you making it clear you weren't defending Dan's conjecture. You may note that even there you were warned about hijacking.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

 

You remember incorrectly. The hijack portion was split off

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94016-questions-about-shapiro-delay-split-from-speculations-thread/

 

It is quite clear that your question about mass came AFTER I told you that you were hijacking the thread, and outlined what was appropriate and inappropriate. Which you ignored.

It seemed to me that the split occurred after I was given my first bit of punishment, I woke up and found I could read the forum but could not post anything, and the split off thread was there.

 

I have just gone through Dan's thread and it was Strange who first introduced the idea of the third mass idea, "some other BH", that the G-wave could have gone past on the way to LIGO.

I'll have to read the other thread as well but it is late here. Good night all.

 

The hijacking started when you were asking Mordred things, rather than Dan, combined with you making it clear you weren't defending Dan's conjecture. You may note that even there you were warned about hijacking.

They were all points that Mordred had made in the thread itself. Are we not allowed to question points made previously in the thread?

Read also #21 please.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

It seemed to me that the split occurred after I was given my first bit of punishment, I woke up and found I could read the forum but could not post anything, and the split off thread was there.

I think that's right. The split happened because you had hijacked the thread. It could not be split off before your hijack; it had to happen after. The decision to split and to revoke your posting took time, because we had to discuss the issue, namely that you had ignored all of the commentary to the effect that you were hijacking, again, and what we should do about it.

 

 

I have just gone through Dan's thread and it was Strange who first introduced the idea of the third mass idea, "some other BH", that the G-wave could have gone past on the way to LIGO.

And you will notice that Strange's comments were directed to Dan and concerned his conjecture, in an attempt to understand the scenario described by his hypothesis. Something you were decidedly NOT doing.

They were all points that Mordred had made in the thread itself. Are we not allowed to question points made previously in the thread?

No, not in the thread, if it means you are changing the course of the discussion. It was in speculations. You were interrupting the discussion rather than adding to it. Asking those question is not one of the three things you can do, which I am not going to repeat yet again.

[Phi for All]

I have never abused anyone. What trouble have I caused? All I have been doing here is to learn and to discuss science.

 

I don't think you provide enough benefit to justify all the time you suck from reasonable, qualified scientists on this site. You force crackpot ideas in where they don't belong, you can't seem to keep information given to you in your head for more than a couple of posts so you keep asking for it over and over, and you pick on things like our moderation of thread-hijacking, like you don't understand why anyone would actually want you to stay on topic.

 

Some of the very people you're criticizing now with this stupid, stupid, incessant badgering just don't deserve it. Your signal to noise ratio requires sifting through your posts to find any relevance. I just can't believe you get kicked out of so many discussion sites for this kind of behavior, yet you never change, you never seem to equate the two. "What trouble have I caused?" Clues = 0.

 

As you can tell, I've lost all patience with you. I'm amazed (and saddened) that you still get such excellent replies, though you mostly ignore them.