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.
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.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
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.
Then I am confused. You said that we didn't fork. But we did, multiple times and your original topic died with just twelve posts.
I forked it the moment that I had a chance. No other mod saw it in the interim. Even when I did fork it, it wasn't fast enough and people were cross posting for a bit, and we got that cleaned up to.
-
What were we talking about?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
What were we talking about?
Yep, this thread completely lost me.
-
@coliver said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@DustinB3403 said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
What were we talking about?
Yep, this thread completely lost me.
I think we need a new topic..
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
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.
Then I am confused. You said that we didn't fork. But we did, multiple times and your original topic died with just twelve posts.
I forked it the moment that I had a chance. No other mod saw it in the interim. Even when I did fork it, it wasn't fast enough and people were cross posting for a bit, and we got that cleaned up to.
You did, but not without flak for wanting it forked and how conversation should flow organically...I mean it wasn't like it was done immediately simply because I requested it.
Dude. You guys figure out what works, or don't. I don't care. I'm probably not going to respond here again, which is saying a lot. I'm a pretty tolerant and laid back guy, but this...this was not worth my time.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
What were we talking about?
The greatest utensil ever, the titanium spork
-
So how do we fix it, then? This is a thread specifically about when to have derailments or how to deal with them. We've had this same thread topic many times in the past and while people often call "derailment" in posts as they happen, no one has proposed solutions or changes when it has been discussed specifically.
We've had no constructive input over the years as to what else to do? It's a discussion forum, the conversation is the goal. Yes, OPs often wish that they could control which posts stay or leave but that is not realistic, everyone is an individual contributor to the conversations.
I agree that Reddit has kind of a beneficial system for that but having tried it I know a lot of people feel that it is not as beneficial as it seems. I know of no perfect solution. What I don't know is how to make you happy with the results regardless of what we determine that they should be.
-
@Rob-Dunn You are clearly invested in the topic, or else you wouldn't have responded to the thread at all.
Or any of them, besides your original topic (which what was it I've honestly no idea I don't think I replied to it) of. "please separate this this derail out"
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
You did, but not without flak for wanting it forked and how conversation should flow organically...I mean it wasn't like it was done immediately simply because I requested it.
I explained why it could not be. It was forked as soon as posting slowed enough to let it happen. It takes a bit to be able to fork and if things are busy when we do it, part of the thread gets abandoned. It's a one shot forking deal so if it doesn't work correctly, the thread gets hosed.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
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.
But the alternative is that there aren't those additional posts. Why would you abandon it if there was a lively conversation about something else rather than just no responses? I'm unclear on the reasoning here? What would make you stay?
-
Yes, I'm invested in this particular topic, pretty much because I decided to finally say something about how I see every thread go here in ML, and it happened to me (again). I was annoyed for myself, but also felt that for other posters they would likely experience the same thing.
I'm discovering that maybe this is not a community for me.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Yes, I'm invested in this particular topic, pretty much because I decided to finally say something about how I see every thread go here in ML, and it happened to me (again). I was annoyed for myself, but also felt that for other posters they would likely experience the same thing.
I'm discovering that maybe this is not a community for me.
So, to be sure what I'm understanding as the issue, is really that it is me. You are upset that I get invested in topics and have a rather vigorous discussion that you perceive, and maybe are correct, is argumentative and that that takes the topic in a direction that you do not agree with?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Yes, I'm invested in this particular topic, pretty much because I decided to finally say something about how I see every thread go here in ML, and it happened to me (again). I was annoyed for myself, but also felt that for other posters they would likely experience the same thing.
I'm discovering that maybe this is not a community for me.
So, to be sure what I'm understanding as the issue, is really that it is me. You are upset that I get invested in topics and have a rather vigorous discussion that you perceive, and maybe are correct, is argumentative and that that takes the topic in a direction that you do not agree with?
Nope.
-
So, if the issue is what I think that it is, would forking have fixed it? For example, this one was forked but you are upset with this one too. It wasn't the fork or lack thereof that was the concern but really it was my posting style that was the issue?
Because this thread has remained solidly on topic and it is this one that you are upset about, am I correct? So forking or derailment isn't the issue now, in this case, unless I am REALLY missing something.
-
Is your complaint then with the fact that topics aren't so strictly moderated to keep subjects together. So they are like a quick reference card.?(short and to the point)
-
@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:
Yes, I'm invested in this particular topic, pretty much because I decided to finally say something about how I see every thread go here in ML, and it happened to me (again). I was annoyed for myself, but also felt that for other posters they would likely experience the same thing.
I'm discovering that maybe this is not a community for me.
So, to be sure what I'm understanding as the issue, is really that it is me. You are upset that I get invested in topics and have a rather vigorous discussion that you perceive, and maybe are correct, is argumentative and that that takes the topic in a direction that you do not agree with?
Nope.
Then I'm lost. If the issue isn't me, as it normally is, what can be done to improve things?
-
See that ludicrous display last night? What was Wenger thinking, sending Walcott on that early?
-
It is generally very easy to see when a topic starts going off into lala land after a few posts that are not directly related to the OP. Yes they may have sprang from it and are tangentially related.
A moderator can easily lock the topic to prevent the rapid response from cluttering it all up for the minute that it takes him to fork out the conversation, and then unlock the thread again.
On top of moderators doing it, the users are at fault for perpetuating it.
The forum now has the capability to let you reply as a topic. Unfortunately you cannot easily quote and reply as a topic. That capability would be the easiest for helping user self split their topics.
Unfortunately, by @scottalanmiller's apparent design, this will never come to be because he does not like it.
