Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@dafyre said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
But in this situation, we had 3 different discussions all happening in the same thread. .. Forking, in this instance, I think was not a bad thing...
TL;DR: Holy Thread Forking, Batman!
However, as we've shown in quite a few of these, the big divergence happened AFTER someone threw in a non-sequitur which was, as it has been many times before, the sudden jump from organic conversation that had led from the original topic to one of social media management and derailments. Every thread where someone suddenly comes in and says "derailment" immediately leaps all over the place (because it makes the people who were still discussing the original topic want to scatter and other people fill the gap, I guess.)
Looking at the part prior to the bit where the derailment topic started, I couldn't figure out where exactly things had happened.
So what about that triple over time game last night.
3 on 3 with a goalie. That was awesome.
Fork it!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
I didn't think that it had. I was not following it from the very beginning. At no point did I see it make a leap until we started talking about derailments. Until that point, I had not see a specific change. What post do you felt changed it? You were the one that said it shifted, I'm the one that said it did not, so asking me where I think it didn't happen would be.... everywhere.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
Here are the first three comments.
So which one do you feel was off topic? If the post was purely information and did not warrant further discussion, all three are "off topic" but that measure.
One is joking-ish. One is stating that he avoided it. One was raising the issue of users not caring and being annoyed by the resulting situation.
All three are organically following the topic, none are in a response to a question or needed. All three would result in you wanting to unsub from the topic as they don't provide value back to the OP given that there is no question to answer.
So by that measure, I'd say every response was off topic. But I don't agree with that assessment.
-
At the end of the day guys, the way the topics flow is a hot mess.
It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.
What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.
It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
Here are the first three comments.
So which one do you feel was off topic? If the post was purely information and did not warrant further discussion, all three are "off topic" but that measure.
One is joking-ish. One is stating that he avoided it. One was raising the issue of users not caring and being annoyed by the resulting situation.
All three are organically following the topic, none are in a response to a question or needed. All three would result in you wanting to unsub from the topic as they don't provide value back to the OP given that there is no question to answer.
So by that measure, I'd say every response was off topic. But I don't agree with that assessment.
Of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The thing is - and I can't believe I'm writing this - is if you are creating a new point that warrants additional discussion that is not directly related to the original topic at hand, it should be forked to a new topic. As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen, and so I commented, politely, to please start a new one, and everyone ignored that and kept on going anyway.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in [Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork](/topic/9098/ransomware-conversation-derailment-
As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen.
So only a seasoned user should create new topics then as they know when a new topic should be created.
Everyone else is still discussing the original thread, but with new details.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in [Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork](/topic/9098/ransomware-conversation-derailment-
As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen.
So only a seasoned user should create new topics then as they know when a new topic should be created.
Everyone else is still discussing the original thread, but with new details.
This is after it was forked - to your point, it's probably due to how things are moderated. If a person can't determine when they should start a new thread, the moderator should do it before it gets too far down the road.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.
Well there are two possible ways for it to go. Either we are railroading into submission by just accepting the OP opinion without discussion. Or if we discussion the opposing point we get told we are railroading people into submission.
Isn't the complaint then that I'm not just letting you dictate but am proposing the counter argument? If I didn't, wouldn't you be the one railroading rather than me (which is what you are implying.)
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.
What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.
But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
Here are the first three comments.
So which one do you feel was off topic? If the post was purely information and did not warrant further discussion, all three are "off topic" but that measure.
One is joking-ish. One is stating that he avoided it. One was raising the issue of users not caring and being annoyed by the resulting situation.
All three are organically following the topic, none are in a response to a question or needed. All three would result in you wanting to unsub from the topic as they don't provide value back to the OP given that there is no question to answer.
So by that measure, I'd say every response was off topic. But I don't agree with that assessment.
Of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The thing is - and I can't believe I'm writing this - is if you are creating a new point that warrants additional discussion that is not directly related to the original topic at hand, it should be forked to a new topic. As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen, and so I commented, politely, to please start a new one, and everyone ignored that and kept on going anyway.
Okay, well then that wasn't me because I responded only to what you, the OP, had said and was then the one doing the forking on your behalf. I thought that you were talking about me. I was away for a bit right after you had posted that so did not see those additional topics until a full page had been created.
After the point where you said it, I saw new topics that I could never find where they started.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.
I think all topics on ML from now on need to be organized as books, if you could start piecing different threads together so they are singular topic focused that'd be great....
Also lock them so they can never be modified..
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
This is after it was forked - to your point, it's probably due to how things are moderated. If a person can't determine when they should start a new thread, the moderator should do it before it gets too far down the road.
I mostly agree. And that's what we do. It's very, very hard, though, because almost never is there a clear point of delineation. It's always a slow move from one central focus to another. You generally can only tell that it happened after it has happened for a bit. If you do it right away you will often cut off the original topic. I've seen that on SW a lot where someone didn't understand how the topic was connected and wanted it forked even though it was just an attempt to answer the OP.
So you need to see where the branch goes before you know if it is going anywhere. And by the time that it does, it looks like you haven't forked. But before that, it would not have made sense. And there isn't a specific person who knows that they are the one that should be forked, hence the problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.
Well there are two possible ways for it to go. Either we are railroading into submission by just accepting the OP opinion without discussion. Or if we discussion the opposing point we get told we are railroading people into submission.
Isn't the complaint then that I'm not just letting you dictate but am proposing the counter argument? If I didn't, wouldn't you be the one railroading rather than me (which is what you are implying.)
But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.
Now we're having this conversation that's taken up a good portion of my morning because you can't or won't understand that some people think differently than you and might want to use the community differently than you - and you need them to explain it to you as if we're the oddballs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.
What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.
But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.
Then remove the capability to title your posts.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.
You do realise that we forked your topic hours ago and this is not it any longer, right?
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.
What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.
But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.
Then remove the capability to title your posts.
But then people would not know that we are having a topic right now specifically about when things are or are not derailments.
-
Holy crap, yes.
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
But see - that's not the topic. The initial topic is that I didn't like how MY topic was handled, and for that I feel you are railroading me. A secondary topic is that it happens here a lot - belaboring the point until the other person gives up. There's absolutely no reason this conversation should be this long. I asked to please have my thread forked because it did not pertain to my original topic; but instead of it getting done, now I'm in the wrong for wanting my topic to flow in a way that works for me, and I have to justify it to you.
You do realise that we forked your topic hours ago and this is not it any longer, right?
Jesus Scott, seriously.
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.
What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.
But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.
Then remove the capability to title your posts.
But then people would not know that we are having a topic right now specifically about when things are or are not derailments.
That makes no sense Scott, I'm sorry.
Then why have groups or categories here? By your logic, everything should be free-form and not have a topic at all.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It's like buying a book called "How to Drywall," and at the end of the book we're talking about the history of wall repair.
What you're proposing is that each topic is like a magazine about drywall - with many sub topics and articles, but there's no heading, no separation from section to section. It's ADHD in physical form.
But it is neither, it is a conversation. Not a pre-organized book or magazine.
Then remove the capability to title your posts.
It's a conversational starting point. I get your point, I do, and conversations do die and sometimes they trigger other things that do need to be forked. This is something I've been discussing with people for years.
The problem is is that it isn't simple. You asked for your topic to be forked, it was, this is the topic that I started, not you, to discuss forkings (but it has your post at the top because it was a fork, so it looks like you started it.)
There has to be some amount of time for people to figure out that something needs to be forked.
So, instead of us belabouring the situation, let's try the opposite. For both posters and mods, what do you propose as the best solution?
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Then why have groups or categories here? By your logic, everything should be free-form and not have a topic at all.
Well, to be fair, that is exactly why we don't have categories except for incredibly broad ones. Because things are grey.
It's a conversation, yes, it is pretty close to free form. Moreso than to other things.
