Derails, Splits and Mergers. page 1
Robert_S
20th January 2012, 07:17 PM
What are the principles, philosophy and practices about these?
Elsewhere, there has been some friction over these issues. Perhaps here some of that can be avoided by explicitly stating how these things should be handled, if at all.
Elsewhere, there has been some friction over these issues. Perhaps here some of that can be avoided by explicitly stating how these things should be handled, if at all.
queenb
20th January 2012, 07:19 PM
Yes, sunlight is important to plants
oblivion
20th January 2012, 07:22 PM
they are pretty lax, I think, and they will evolve. If someone wants a derail or side discussion split, or a thread merged they can use the report button to start a discussion suggesting staff getting off their asses and doing something about it.
This is the report button. http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/report.gif It's underneath the user name and avatar on the right hand side of each post.
This is the report button. http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/report.gif It's underneath the user name and avatar on the right hand side of each post.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 12:15 AM
Until I saw your post in the intros forum, I didn't realize this was a personal peeve.
Want to share what sorts of thread splits you find annoying?
Want to share what sorts of thread splits you find annoying?
Robert_S
21st January 2012, 12:27 AM
Until I saw your post in the intros forum, I didn't realize this was a personal peeve.
Want to share what sorts of thread splits you find annoying?
It wasn't my peeve about the derail, it was other people's drama over a split that peeved me.
But the reason I brought it up was that it's about the only decision that might be controversial. How many posts make the difference between a tangent and a derail? When is an old thread on a topic too old for a new thread to be merged into it?
Doing a little bit of thinking beforehand can help a lot sometimes.
My comments in the other thread refer to something that I'm sure others would love to talk about. I brought that up as it is pertinent to a saga which insists on being ongoing.
Want to share what sorts of thread splits you find annoying?
It wasn't my peeve about the derail, it was other people's drama over a split that peeved me.
But the reason I brought it up was that it's about the only decision that might be controversial. How many posts make the difference between a tangent and a derail? When is an old thread on a topic too old for a new thread to be merged into it?
Doing a little bit of thinking beforehand can help a lot sometimes.
My comments in the other thread refer to something that I'm sure others would love to talk about. I brought that up as it is pertinent to a saga which insists on being ongoing.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 12:38 AM
tangent vs derail IMO is not measured by number of posts. It's measured by degree of off-topicness, which is not an objective standard. botched thread splits often wind up killing either the original thread, the split thread, or both, so I don't often do thread splits for the purpose of maintaining two ongoing diverged conversations. If the thread participants want something split, I pay attention.
On forums with rules about such stuff, I've followed the guidelines when someone reports a thread for off topic or inappropriate content. MR doesn't have rules or guidelines about when to split threads, and I personally would like see that kind of standard arise organically via member discussions about reported threads.
On forums with rules about such stuff, I've followed the guidelines when someone reports a thread for off topic or inappropriate content. MR doesn't have rules or guidelines about when to split threads, and I personally would like see that kind of standard arise organically via member discussions about reported threads.
Robert_S
21st January 2012, 12:54 AM
Fair enough.
I just have a feeling things might go better if people are thinking in terms of what principles are at play before it comes up.
I just have a feeling things might go better if people are thinking in terms of what principles are at play before it comes up.
Exi5tentialist
21st January 2012, 12:59 AM
I'd suggest we don't worry about thread splits except in the most extreme circumstances and even then I'd have to decide each case on its merits to support a split. From what I've seen on RatSkep and Rationalia, mods splitting threads can be a proxy for suppressing a minority point of view with which they disagree. Discussions need to be allowed to ramble and go off tangentially - let the community bring them back if there is a strong feeling they have gone completely off-topic.
An example - a Christopher Hitchens RIP thread at RatSkep went off on all tangents about many of the issues that Hitchens expressed a view of. The thread was split twice as I remember, and that really quite annoyed me because those splits were totally unnecessary, it really made me not want to bother discussing anything much at RatSkep. Discussions do ramble, people do get a bee in their bonnet - let them express themselves freely.
An example - a Christopher Hitchens RIP thread at RatSkep went off on all tangents about many of the issues that Hitchens expressed a view of. The thread was split twice as I remember, and that really quite annoyed me because those splits were totally unnecessary, it really made me not want to bother discussing anything much at RatSkep. Discussions do ramble, people do get a bee in their bonnet - let them express themselves freely.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 01:07 AM
What would an extreme circumstance be?
Exi5tentialist
21st January 2012, 01:09 AM
I can't possibly imagine
Robert_S
21st January 2012, 01:41 AM
I actually like to bring tangents back into the main stream. I remember one thread where I was planning on bringing together the themes of animal cuteness sympathy, hunting and cannibalism with this song:
Cannibal! The Musical: The Trapper Song - YouTube
Alas, the thread ran out of steam. :sadcheer:
Cannibal! The Musical: The Trapper Song - YouTube
Alas, the thread ran out of steam. :sadcheer:
oblivion
21st January 2012, 01:43 AM
I watched that movie on Christmas Eve!
Robert_S
21st January 2012, 01:45 AM
I watched that movie on Christmas Eve!
It's so awesome! :D
I need to get another copy of it.
It's so awesome! :D
I need to get another copy of it.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 01:47 AM
It wasn't my peeve about the derail, it was other people's drama over a split that peeved me.
I am in concurrence.
I argue that splits should not be without request nor acquiescence of the thread readers.
I am in concurrence.
I argue that splits should not be without request nor acquiescence of the thread readers.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 01:53 AM
Discussions need to be allowed to ramble and go off tangentially - let the community bring them back if there is a strong feeling they have gone completely off-topic.
This is exactly how people get to have conversations.
This is exactly how people get to have conversations.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:01 AM
:thumbsup::beercheers::thumbsup:
AWESOME
WATCH THRU THE END
Cannibal! The Musical: The Trapper Song - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew1WBwh3zgo)
Raven, how is the comment function going?
AWESOME
WATCH THRU THE END
Cannibal! The Musical: The Trapper Song - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew1WBwh3zgo)
Raven, how is the comment function going?
oblivion
21st January 2012, 02:05 AM
very mixed feedback so far.
Exi5tentialist
21st January 2012, 02:07 AM
I don't see why splits have to happen at all. They didn't on other forums I've been on, only the last couple of them.
In any forum culture which splits threads from time to time, there is always a contingent that wants to impose the most restrictive interpretation of what 'on-topic' means, and it's usually possible to detect exactly what stance people take on a controversial topic simply by looking at who's asking for a thread split.
In any forum culture which splits threads from time to time, there is always a contingent that wants to impose the most restrictive interpretation of what 'on-topic' means, and it's usually possible to detect exactly what stance people take on a controversial topic simply by looking at who's asking for a thread split.
Exi5tentialist
21st January 2012, 02:08 AM
Discussions need to be allowed to ramble and go off tangentially - let the community bring them back if there is a strong feeling they have gone completely off-topic.
This is exactly how people get to have conversations.
Well really I meant, "let other members post their own opinions about the original topic if they have a strong feeling it has gone completely off-topic"
This is exactly how people get to have conversations.
Well really I meant, "let other members post their own opinions about the original topic if they have a strong feeling it has gone completely off-topic"
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:17 AM
everybody has strong feelings about something,
let them have it (it harms no one, everyone can talk about what they want, the act is gracious)
if you want a new thread, start a new thread, the conversationalist will follow you.
let them have it (it harms no one, everyone can talk about what they want, the act is gracious)
if you want a new thread, start a new thread, the conversationalist will follow you.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:19 AM
No one expects the Moderators to make people post in their thread, right?
MSG
21st January 2012, 02:29 AM
there are no moderators hth
charlou
21st January 2012, 05:19 AM
I'm fine with not splitting threads for the various reasons already raised, and because the less we are asked to make subjective decisions the better.
Hermit
21st January 2012, 09:36 AM
I'm fine with not splitting threads for the various reasons already raised, and because the less we are asked to make subjective decisions the better.
Excuse me. You are discussing the issue of decision making now. Please split this off into a new thread.
Excuse me. You are discussing the issue of decision making now. Please split this off into a new thread.
Robert_S
21st January 2012, 09:53 AM
Oh look! a Kitty!
nostrum
21st January 2012, 12:03 PM
My first and finest moment as admin will be to merger all the points of view in this thread.
Exi5tentialist
21st January 2012, 12:50 PM
No one expects the Moderators to make people post in their thread, right?
I duz not understands wot dat meanz plz explane
I duz not understands wot dat meanz plz explane
Jerome
21st January 2012, 03:50 PM
No one expects the Moderators to make people post in their thread, right?
I duz not understands wot dat meanz plz explane
If one has a conversation going and it is 'derailed' by another conversation, one can either continue to have that conversation in the thread or start a new thread to which those that want that conversation can travel. Mods splitting off whichever conversation are making a choice as to which conversation has more relevance and are taking the affirmative action of making one of the conversations more easily found as it is the on-going larger thread.
My statement quoted above was an exaggeration of this idea.
I duz not understands wot dat meanz plz explane
If one has a conversation going and it is 'derailed' by another conversation, one can either continue to have that conversation in the thread or start a new thread to which those that want that conversation can travel. Mods splitting off whichever conversation are making a choice as to which conversation has more relevance and are taking the affirmative action of making one of the conversations more easily found as it is the on-going larger thread.
My statement quoted above was an exaggeration of this idea.
Exi5tentialist
24th January 2012, 08:39 PM
Whenever mods on other sites I've known have split conversations off that I've been quite involved in, it's always felt quite vindictive. Often the split was made because I've expressed a minority opinion and taken time to explain the philosophical background to the opinion - usually that philosophical background runs counter to prevailing opinions in the forum and among mods. The overwhelming risk is censorship, in which conversations that are included under an interesting and easily-findable topic heading are banished to a little-used sub-forum or a rather uninteresting topic title.
So because it goes against the ethos of this website I'd oppose the splitting of any threads in principle.
So because it goes against the ethos of this website I'd oppose the splitting of any threads in principle.
charlou
25th January 2012, 04:55 AM
It does tend to interrupt the natural flow, regardless of the motive for the split. Meandering conversations are interesting.
Robert_S
25th January 2012, 11:03 AM
I think in general splits are sometimes good. I think given the stated ethos of the forum, splits are inconsistent. Perhaps a meme of starting new threads from the more promising tangents would be worth cultivating.
I'm thinking especially tangents that stray far afield of the stated subject and might be of interest to people who might not be interested in the original thread.
I'm thinking especially tangents that stray far afield of the stated subject and might be of interest to people who might not be interested in the original thread.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét