Question of threads at Lit

[KillerMuffin]

Do you think that the thread starter somehow "owns" a thread?

That the threadstarter somehow has a right to determine where it goes?

Can people "host" threads? As in using the thread as some sort of "home" and act as a "host or hostess" to thread visitors?

Do threadstarters have a good reason to get angry and attack/insult/display passive~aggressive behavior to thread hijackers?

 

[Saint Peter]

No.

 

[Guest]

 

[Olivianna]

Do you think that the thread starter somehow "owns" a thread?

That the threadstarter somehow has a right to determine where it goes?

Can people "host" threads? As in using the thread as some sort of "home" and act as a "host or hostess" to thread visitors?

Do threadstarters have a good reason to get angry and attack/insult/display passive~aggressive behavior to thread hijackers?

No.

No.

Maybe. Depends on how aggressively the thread-starter pursues that goal (i.e. being a thread host).

No. By starting a thread in a public forum, you're giving up any control over the thread's destination/direction.

 

[Problem Child]

no

no

they can try

no

 

[stratocaster]

No.

 

[QuickDuck]

Do you think that the thread starter somehow "owns" a thread?

That the threadstarter somehow has a right to determine where it goes?

Can people "host" threads? As in using the thread as some sort of "home" and act as a "host or hostess" to thread visitors?

Do threadstarters have a good reason to get angry and attack/insult/display passive~aggressive behavior to thread hijackers?

no, because then we would be the Playground.

 

[HeavyStick]

Try those questions in the Playground, you'll get a completely different set of answers.

 

[capricious_chic]

Do you think that the thread starter somehow "owns" a thread?

That the threadstarter somehow has a right to determine where it goes?

Can people "host" threads? As in using the thread as some sort of "home" and act as a "host or hostess" to thread visitors?

Do threadstarters have a good reason to get angry and attack/insult/display passive~aggressive behavior to thread hijackers?

No. It is a public forum.

No. Although if one is skilled in manipulation, one should be able to direct where it will go.

Yes. If they so choose to.

No. Again, it is a public form.

 

[SilvaTungDevil]

These threads have so many different personalities. Some seem hosted, others seem to be owned, and still others seem to be free for alls.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

These threads have so many different personalities. Some seem hosted, others seem to be owned, and still others seem to be free for alls.

Don't we own this thread?

 

[Freya]

I think if the thread starter feels his/her question hasn't been answered, or the topic hasn't run its course, he/she could gently steer it back on topic, mostly by just ignoring the hijackers and answering to legitimate replies. But to get upset over a hijacking is silly - it is a public forum and you can't prevent that stuff.

 

[Problem Child]

These threads have so many different personalities. Some seem hosted, others seem to be owned, and still others seem to be free for alls.

The ones that "seem" to be owned would probably be better off over at the playground.

 

[Nora]

no.

no.

I'm torn on this one. It's nice when a threadstarter guides the convo, reassures people who might be expressing an unpopular opinion...and I've seen the host/ess thang done in a relatively nice way, but in general it's not an explicity duty. Sometimes it's just annoying. Depends on the host/ess.

no.

 

[sexy-girl]

i dont think that a thread starter owns a thread but i also think there is nothing wrong with politely saying can you start your own thread if you wish to have your own conversation in a thread i just started

 

[SilvaTungDevil]

The ones that "seem" to be owned would probably be better off over at the playground.

Trying to lure us in to seduce us? You can get in trouble PC picking up victims at a playground.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Trying to lure us in to seduce us? You can get in trouble PC picking up victims at a playground.

He's the guy who hangs out at the Playground in a long overcoat.

 

[Problem Child]

Trying to lure us in to seduce us? You can get in trouble PC picking up victims at a playground.

I wouldn't go over there to fuck with them. That's a little too easy.

Seriously though, I think there are a few threads that are started by little "cliques" on this board and the people that post in them tend to post nowhere else. Prime example is the Synnerman thread...I think that's what it's called. Some of the people in there I have never seen post anywhere else. Not that I really care who posts where, but to me that thread only benefits a very tiny slice of the board and is a small pain in the ass to the overwhelming majority of the board.

Kind of like the lil brandi thread. Not worth the bandwidth it sucks up, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

I wouldn't go over there to fuck with them. That's a little too easy.

Seriously though, I think there are a few threads that are started by little "cliques" on this board and the people that post in them tend to post nowhere else. Prime example is the Synnerman thread...I think that's what it's called. Some of the people in there I have never seen post anywhere else. Not that I really care who posts where, but to me that thread only benefits a very tiny slice of the board and is a small pain in the ass to the overwhelming majority of the board.

Kind of like the lil brandi thread. Not worth the bandwidth it sucks up, but that's just my opinion.

Dood...yur a thread killa

 

[teddybear4play]

Do you think that the thread starter somehow "owns" a thread?

That the threadstarter somehow has a right to determine where it goes?

To a certain extent. I don't think the originator should have full powers to just regulate all over the place, but it's not too much to ask that a person who's asking a serious question have the right to hear satisfactory responses and not garbage.

Can people "host" threads? As in using the thread as some sort of "home" and act as a "host or hostess" to thread visitors?

On some threads, it'd actually be nice to have one of those.

Do threadstarters have a good reason to get angry and attack/insult/display passive~aggressive behavior to thread hijackers?

Depends. If the thread's about a serious subject, I'd be pissed if someone came along and jacked it. But if the thread is "I love doughnuts!" or something else that's just a goof to begin with, the threadstarter shouldn't get too pissed if someone deviates from the doughy goodness of the original subject.

TB4p

 

[Problem Child]

Dood...yur a thread killa

That's actully a good thing.

 

[intrigued]

Do you think that the thread starter somehow "owns" a thread?

*No.

That the threadstarter somehow has a right to determine where it goes?

*No.

Can people "host" threads? As in using the thread as some sort of "home" and act as a "host or hostess" to thread visitors?

*sigh....if I start a thread, I do feel the need to address those that took the time to address me.

Do threadstarters have a good reason to get angry and attack/insult/display passive~aggressive behavior to thread hijackers?

*No. Its silly to do so, and its something that is a button pusher for me when I see others do so.
I think if you wish to redirect, you can use the quote button.
I think if you find someone getting on your nerves to the point that you wish them to stop hijacking, you can PM them. There is no need to further hijack and embarass, etc by posting about it..

 

[patient1]

Do you think that the thread starter somehow "owns" a thread?

That the threadstarter somehow has a right to determine where it goes?

Can people "host" threads? As in using the thread as some sort of "home" and act as a "host or hostess" to thread visitors?

Do threadstarters have a good reason to get angry and attack/insult/display passive~aggressive behavior to thread hijackers?

In the sense of rights, we have no conrtol over one another,

Therefore-

No.
No.
Sure.
No.


HOWEVER In the sense that Literotica is a community, or colony of communities-
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

I think that the threadstarter has claim to a thread until they abandon it- sort of like a picnic table in a public park..They can ask somebody to join or depart, but they don't have much authority tomake it happen.

I think a threadstarter is within their rights to redirect the discussion, or suggest that somebody start a new thread on the tangential topic- or take a blatant flirtation elsewhere. I think they are within their rights to ask others to refrain from humor on threads that are about their personal problems & tragedies.

There are thread starters like Daughter & tigerjen that do great jobs of responding to each poster. I think it's very thoughtful & polite of them to acknowledge the input for which they asked, but I don't expect that.

I think that a difference of opinion is one thing, but to defy the creator of a thread for the sake of asserting your "rights" is juvenile. We remember Clive's hijack, too. Usually, the community members respect each other's wishes - BratCat left Modest Mouse's thread when directed. I left KM's thread sink when she wanted it to die. I also think that these things can be ironed out in PMs, without making them a public issue where it's assert yourself or lose your reputation.

Failing that, I recommend the ignore feature. It removes the defacing & defecation. Sure, it throws the delinquent out with the defecation, but why waste your energy socializing with the anti-social, or concerning yourself with the opinions of people who have no concern for yours?