I believe that the point being made is that as moderators we generally ask for members to remain on topic for all threads in order to maintain their integrity. It is understandable that from time to time discussion will give birth to new ideas and thought processes that need to be explored and on these occasions we ask that a new thread be created and the originating thread be left to its original discourse.
Now that is a good one...asking ADHDers to mostly stay on topic. Almost all threads of any length, branch off on several different shoots and then they may return to the subject. Why does this thread get the special warning?

"The guideline violation is thread hyjacking! "

This is a concern of mine and I would appreciate it if the questions below were answered in public. If there are possible new rules, everyone should know what they are.

Now what about thread hijacking?
i)This is a new rule?
ii)Define what thread hijacking is?
iii)And if I notice thread hijacking, should I hit the warning button?

It is common courtesy to those that originate a thread topic, for those that respond to remain on topic. Those that don't are usually guilty of hijacking a thread. While certain shifts in conversation are beneficial to the progress of a thread, others are purely distracting and fly in the face of constructive additions to the thread in question. This is not a new rule. This is common sense, and considered proper etiquette on web forums. No formal rule will be created to address this. Moderators will edit and/or remove posts as necessary to maintain the integrity of a thread, as necessary, and without necessarily issuing a formal warning or further explanation.

I find what happens often is I only read the *new* posts, in my haste to keep up....:faint: without going back to the original post...I guess that is a bad thing, as quite often, the original thread is off track and when I jump in at the end, and so I just continue on from where it ended, after browsing the last few posts. Quite often it may not even about the original post any more, without me even realizing..:faint: Time to re-think the way I rush into things maybe, and be more polite:p

Constructive "shifts" in thread discussions are common. Hijacking, however, completely changes direction of the thread, sometimes without consideration of the original thread topic. This happens oftentimes unintentionally, its the staff's responsibility to move, merge or remove such posts. This may occur with or without staff reminders/warnings.

Constructive "shifts" in thread discussions are common. Hijacking, however, completely changes direction of the thread, sometimes without consideration of the original thread topic. This happens oftentimes unintentionally, its the staff's responsibility to move, merge or remove such posts. This may occur with or without staff reminders/warnings.

The word "hijacking" is such a loaded word. The definition as used in the context of the original post, really indicates malice in the intent of the poster. I don't think that really happens, or happens rarely.

I agree with you Andrew, changes in topic occur largely, unintentionally. There are times when folks offer a disenting viewpoint of that offered by the original poster, IMHO that is not "hijacking". A disenting viewpoint is very much on topic. Lets hope that we will continue to be allowed that freedom of expression without interference. :soapbox:

The word "hijacking" is such a loaded word. The definition as used in the context of the original post, really indicates malice in the intent of the poster. I don't think that really happens, or happens rarely.

I agree with you Andrew, changes in topic occur largely, unintentionally. There are times when folks offer a disenting viewpoint of that offered by the original poster, IMHO that is not "hijacking". A disenting viewpoint is very much on topic. Lets hope that we will continue to be allowed that freedom of expression without interference. :soapbox:

The word "hijacking" is not a loaded word. Its a definition of a situation that sometimes occurs on a web forum. I encourage you to research the use of the phrase "thread hijacking" on other forums if you need clarification of its definition and usage. Perhaps the definition in Wikipedia would be helpful to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_Hijacking

I do not broadly classify dissenting viewpoints as "hijacking", and therefore do not see it as a deterrence of freedom of expression. Enforcement of this "rule" will be based on the situation at hand, and will be handled as described in an earlier post in this thread.

Thanks for the link Andrew. I like that definiton.

Thread Hijacking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thread hijacking is the act of taking a forum discussion thread wildly 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 often humourous, often extract a feeling of resentment from the author of the post.

Hehe... I saw this and thought, WOW... they actually expect ADDers and ADHDers to stay on topic? I'd think a forum such as this would be a little more sympathetic in this situation lol.