Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork
-
I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail. I think a new topic would be sufficient for that.
Overall, this was just to notify people about what I'm seeing in the field and to give a "heads-up" to anyone. Now I'm getting spammed with stuff I don't really care about (well, I do, but that wasn't the direction I was expecting the topic to go).
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.
Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.
...and this is why I don't post here often. Every time I post anything or try to follow a topic here on ML, it devolves into an argument between usually you and someone else who doesn't agree with you. So now, this side convo is occurring which has very little to do with the original topic.
I don't mean offense to you or anyone else here, but I'm being totally honest here - this is exactly why I don't like interacting on ML.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@scottalanmiller said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.
Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.
...and this is why I don't post here often. Every time I post anything or try to follow a topic here on ML, it devolves into an argument between usually you and someone else who doesn't agree with you. So now, this side convo is occurring which has very little to do with the original topic.
I don't mean offense to you or anyone else here, but I'm being totally honest here - this is exactly why I don't like interacting on ML.
I think that is the case sometimes. Not always though
-
@wirestyle22 said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@scottalanmiller said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.
Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.
...and this is why I don't post here often. Every time I post anything or try to follow a topic here on ML, it devolves into an argument between usually you and someone else who doesn't agree with you. So now, this side convo is occurring which has very little to do with the original topic.
I don't mean offense to you or anyone else here, but I'm being totally honest here - this is exactly why I don't like interacting on ML.
I think that is the case sometimes. Not always though
It has been the case for nearly every topic I've been a part of.
-
@scottalanmiller
From her perspective I have an unbelievable amount of job security, which is true. I could be here for the rest of my life if I wanted to. Between the two of us we will be making around $140k a year. From her standpoint that is more than enough for us. From my standpoint I'm making ob the bottom 20% of my peers. That isn't okay regardless of the situation. -
@wirestyle22 said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller
From her perspective I have an unbelievable amount of job security, which is true. I could be here for the rest of my life if I wanted to. Between the two of us we will be making around $140k a year. From her standpoint that is more than enough for us. From my standpoint I'm making ob the bottom 20% of my peers. That isn't okay regardless of the situation.Wrong fork. This is the one where Rob is discussing derailments. Not the one where the derailment that he was alluding to went. The talk of derailments is always a non-organic derailment on its own, so that got forked as well.
Now @Rob-Dunn can discuss how derailments, forking and such should go without interrupted his topic on ransomware.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.
Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@wirestyle22 said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@scottalanmiller said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.
Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.
...and this is why I don't post here often. Every time I post anything or try to follow a topic here on ML, it devolves into an argument between usually you and someone else who doesn't agree with you. So now, this side convo is occurring which has very little to do with the original topic.
I don't mean offense to you or anyone else here, but I'm being totally honest here - this is exactly why I don't like interacting on ML.
I think that is the case sometimes. Not always though
It has been the case for nearly every topic I've been a part of.
That just implies that you are on good topics in a vibrant community. The topic or community would have to be dead for it to not happen most of the time.
But that's why ML has thread forking to get topics into their own threads! So now we have a place just to discuss the nature of thread derailments.
-
I think what he means is every topic get derailed, in the same way, by the same people.
It's OK with me. I don't let people online get to me (much) and I've learned a lot from some of the derailments, but a lot of it is the same arguments between the same people.
-
@BRRABill said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
I think what he means is every topic get derailed, in the same way, by the same people.
Also the same in every community, there are only the people who are active to have the conversations. And yes, every thread grows, but does not get derailed. I hate the term derailment, it's not what happens. It's that topics don't continue in the intended or expected direction, it is very much not the same as a derailment. It's just the natural extension of any topic discussion.
It might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.
Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.
...and this is why I don't post here often. Every time I post anything or try to follow a topic here on ML, it devolves into an argument between usually you and someone else who doesn't agree with you. So now, this side convo is occurring which has very little to do with the original topic.
I don't mean offense to you or anyone else here, but I'm being totally honest here - this is exactly why I don't like interacting on ML.
Occasionally we all (mostly) agree on something... Occasionally... As @JaredBusch stated in another thread... Mark the calendar when it happens, lol.
But the whole point is for us to all sharpen one another and learn from one another... and yes, that involves riding the merry-go-round a few laps longer, and often times the same merry-go-round in several threads (often times within a day).
But if you are talking and learning and not getting offended by what is being posted, then if the discussion changes course, that's ok... Eventually somebody will try to reel the thread back in to the OP's topic... maybe.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@wirestyle22 said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@scottalanmiller said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
@Rob-Dunn said in Cerber virus/ransomware making the rounds...:
I think it's great that there is a discussion about the implications of backing/not backing up data, but I don't see why this conversation has to derail.
Any conversation that grows organically is not derailed. It's important aspects of the topic that were simply not envisioned as the ones that would be important to the conversation at the outset.
...and this is why I don't post here often. Every time I post anything or try to follow a topic here on ML, it devolves into an argument between usually you and someone else who doesn't agree with you. So now, this side convo is occurring which has very little to do with the original topic.
I don't mean offense to you or anyone else here, but I'm being totally honest here - this is exactly why I don't like interacting on ML.
I think that is the case sometimes. Not always though
It has been the case for nearly every topic I've been a part of.
That just implies that you are on good topics in a vibrant community. The topic or community would have to be dead for it to not happen most of the time.
But that's why ML has thread forking to get topics into their own threads! So now we have a place just to discuss the nature of thread derailments.
While, I generally agree, I think you should have a bit more moderation happening to fork threads and update tags.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@BRRABill said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
I think what he means is every topic get derailed, in the same way, by the same people.
Also the same in every community, there are only the people who are active to have the conversations. And yes, every thread grows, but does not get derailed. I hate the term derailment, it's not what happens. It's that topics don't continue in the intended or expected direction, it is very much not the same as a derailment. It's just the natural extension of any topic discussion.
It might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.
That can work, but not in a linear fashion like Mangolassi's, Spiceworks, or other topic/response based communities. It does work work for sites like Reddit where each subtopic/diversion branches and you can still follow the main flow.
I can't tell you how many times I look to a community post looking for information specific to my question and see a bunch of noise cluttering up the topic. It's like trying to have a conversation when someone has the radio on static at 90db. If I were coming here to look for information about Cerber, or protecting my systems from this specific malware, I'd abandon it as soon as I scrolled down to the 4th post.
This happens ALL THE TIME here, and instead of saying "yeah, you have a point," I'm just going to hear how I'm wrong and it is how things should be. That's fine, but that's also why people abandon communities and move somewhere else. Every time I post here, this is my experience. A topic that should be a few responses deep ends up with a back and forth for pages and pages. I mean, the notifications for the updates are useless at that point and I have to unsubscribe to my OWN topic because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wanted to discuss.
-
@scottalanmiller said
Also the same in every community, there are only the people who are active to have the conversations. And yes, every thread grows, but does not get derailed. I hate the term derailment, it's not what happens. It's that topics don't continue in the intended or expected direction, it is very much not the same as a derailment. It's just the natural extension of any topic discussion.
It might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.
See? There you go again.
(JUST KIDDING.)
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
This happens ALL THE TIME here, and instead of saying "yeah, you have a point," I'm just going to hear how I'm wrong and it is how things should be. That's fine, but that's also why people abandon communities and move somewhere else. Every time I post here, this is my experience. A topic that should be a few responses deep ends up with a back and forth for pages and pages. I mean, the notifications for the updates are useless at that point and I have to unsubscribe to my OWN topic because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wanted to discuss.
I totally understand. The problem is, this is a community forum, not a question and answer forum like StackOverflow. The goal is to have a conversation, not to ask a question and get an answer. That's why it is the way that it is.
What you say is bad, sounds to be like a healthy discussion. If you had a talk with people in real life and it died in ten seconds and no one looked to help each other understand the factors and grow, that would be boring at least and potentially quite bad.
That every topic does it here shows that there are lots of people who really care. It's not like it is the same discussion every time, it's a unique continuation of the original topic.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.
That can work, but not in a linear fashion like Mangolassi's, Spiceworks, or other topic/response based communities.....
But is this not the purpose of these communities? Reddit does have a system for this, it is also impossible to follow except for after the conversation is over. While it is happening, it is useless.
At least here we have forking so once a topic slows down enough to do the forking, we can make different topics out of it when appropriate.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
That every topic does it here shows that there are lots of people who really care. It's not like it is the same discussion every time, it's a unique continuation of the original topic.
We do care... at least some of us care more than others, and probably a little bit too much. So much of IT comes back to choices to do this or that, or stay at this job or move to that job... Or build my servers this way or that way... do I back up or not...
And in a forum of 5 people, you'll get 10 possible ideas, and 11 possible answers... simply because we all have different modes of operation.
-
And if you look at the threads in question, any given one makes sense in context...
Remember rarely are the questions something like "Thing A was working but is not broken, how do I fix it" with "Do B and it will work again."
It's always asking for opinions, ideas, approaches, etc. So there isn't an answer to look for.
It's great that we can ask questions and get answers. But that is not the core of the community. The discussion is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.
That can work, but not in a linear fashion like Mangolassi's, Spiceworks, or other topic/response based communities.....
But is this not the purpose of these communities? Reddit does have a system for this, it is also impossible to follow except for after the conversation is over. While it is happening, it is useless.
At least here we have forking so once a topic slows down enough to do the forking, we can make different topics out of it when appropriate.
IMO, forking should be the exception, not the rule. You shouldn't have to come in and clean up topics without some form of self-moderation and determine that "hey, maybe this isn't related specifically with the OP, why not create a new topic?"
Again, I'm not here for organic conversation about the history of backups and work ethics. I shouldn't have to unsubscribe from my own topic because people can't control themselves and create their own thread.
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
What you say is bad, sounds to be like a healthy discussion. If you had a talk with people in real life and it died in ten seconds and no one looked to help each other understand the factors and grow, that would be boring at least and potentially quite bad.
That every topic does it here shows that there are lots of people who really care. It's not like it is the same discussion every time, it's a unique continuation of the original topic.
But I didn't ask. I didn't ask for people to comment on anything BUT the Cerber ransomware. It's like you're sitting in a room, and I put a sign on the door "Ransomware making the rounds" and you come in and start talking about backups - - - that's just rude.
What I'm saying is - If the conversation dies, then so be it. That's how these kinds of topics go. Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents. If I'm unsubbing from my own topic, there's something wrong.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
IMO, forking should be the exception, not the rule. You shouldn't have to come in and clean up topics without some form of self-moderation and determine that "hey, maybe this isn't related specifically with the OP, why not create a new topic?"
We normally only fork when people start talking about derailing... because that's not an organic continuation of the topic and is actually a derailment. There are several threads about that. Mostly it is just a continuation of the original topic.
Creating a new topic doesn't make sense when it is part of a conversation. You don't stop a conversation in real life and tell people to make a new topic when the conversation drifts away from the original topic organically, right? That's what we have here.
