Thread etiquette and derails

[HelenM]

I'd like to see less derailing of threads into interpersonal conflict, or other comments that are more related to other posters than the thread topic.

If posters want to comment on how someone else posted then I'm not against that per se. But I'd prefer if they (we) could do it in a way that doesn't derail the original thread.

And if someone has a thread discussing their own posting style already, I'd prefer to see discussion of it kept to that thread rather than being taken to any thread in which he posts. I don't think it's appropriate that just because someone asks a question like that, their posts in other threads all become potential derails because people are likely jump in there and comment on how the someone posts rather than making their comment in a thread where it is on topic.

I don't see how this board will succeed at being a venue for serious discussion as well as other types of online interaction if serious discussion threads continue to be derailed at the rate they are currently being derailed by comments about other posters rather than the OP topic.

Helen

[livius drusus]

I agree, Helen. I would also say that as well as being OP topic killers, derailments into personal issues are unlikely to be productive discussions of those issues and are therefore doubly damaging.

Do you have any ideas on how best to contain such instances? Off the top of my head, I can think of poster intervention (like luna's plea on seebs' thread), admin intervention (like poster intervention with the weight of defacto authority), thread splits (a very awkward and less than optimal solution, imo), and consensus (we could use the dynamic announcements system, for instance, to point people to this thread and hopefully get broader based input).

[JoeP]

Helen, your point is an important one. While there are some threads where the OP's intent is clearly light-hearted and open-ended, many or most aren't, and derails do damage them.

I would have waited for an admin response but I see Liv already has. The reason I'm cautious is that attempts to define workable rules, let alone enforce them, leads inexorably to an environment of over-moderation. Imo liv and vm were trying to avoid precisely that in setting up this place.

Liv, what is awkward about thread splits? There have been several here and they have been well handled and well received. Are they difficult for the admins? Oh, and what dynamic announcements system? :popcorn2:

Here's utopia: everybody wanting to comment, joke or complain about a thread opens a new thread for the purpose, pointing to the old thread and linking to it in the old thread (that might sound like a bit of a derail but the commenter must get the original thread's attention).

While writing that sentence, an idea struck me: a "comment on this thread/post" button. Could be helpful...

Short of that utopia, stating this as a policy and encouraging people to follow it shouldn't be too hard. :baby2: The danger comes when people are actually gagged for not following it - or more likely, feel themselves to be effectively gagged by such a suggestion.

Helen, do you find joke comments as detracting as personal ones? I suspect I'm guilty of a few irrelevant jokes and I can't see myself opening new threads for one-line jokes only funny (if at all) in context.

[Socratoad]

For Dog's sake bring on the irrelevant jokes, from time to time they help to lighten an atmosphere that is becoming too intense. I am guilty of doing just that, sometimes against my own intensity. In a certain situation that eventually resulted in two or maybe more people having left this board, hopefully temporarily, it just might have prevented the gathering storm from developing. C'mon folks we must all guard against the all too human tendency to take ourselves too seriously. On a much wider scale, is that not the cause of most of the world's problems/disputes. A little levity is a good thing.

[JoeP]

A little levity is a good thing.Tell that to my daughter's friend who lost a helium-filled balloon outdoors last night.

Back on-topic, livius mention "poster intervention". It occurs to me that in many cases the original poster may not be comfortable doing this, for example if the topic is a sensitive personal one, or if they are uncertain of the level of interest or attention other members have in the subject. Of course, the original or any other poster must have the right - supported by the rules or guidelines and by the actions of the elders* - to request derails be moved elsewhere. But we can't assume that's the whole responsibility.

* I just coined this usage: I mean official admins and moderators, plus any recognised by the community as having wisdom and other qualities and thereby being granted respect and authority.

[livius drusus]

The reason I'm cautious is that attempts to define workable rules, let alone enforce them, leads inexorably to an environment of over-moderation. Imo liv and vm were trying to avoid precisely that in setting up this place.

That's true, but I don't think Helen was suggesting a rule, but rather that we develop, in part via this discussion, a cultural tendancy to avoid such entanglements instead of indulge them. Now's the time to raise the issue because last night saw many examples of diverse threads paralyzed into one basic personal discussion. Even just acknowledging it and keeping it in mind is a big step in the right direction, imo.

Liv, what is awkward about thread splits? There have been several here and they have been well handled and well received. Are they difficult for the admins?

Long threads can be challenging just because it's easy to overlook things when you can only see the first couple of lines of a post (the split view crops most of the post), but what I really mean is that splits inevitably disturb the continuity of a thread, sometimes less dramatically than others, but there's always a dissonance.

Given our belief that our role is in large part to maintain the integrity of the database in a dynamic medium (see the post editing policy (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=135&postcount=2)) as well as encourage discussions whose integrity are worth preserving, we decided before opening that we would split threads only with permission of the thread starter and as infrequently as possible.

Splitting off discussions derailed into personal issues would, I believe, cause more problems than it solves. First there is the matter of the new OP, which would basically require an admin to point to one post and say "he started it". Awkward, very awkward.

Then, if this becomes SOP, one would have to be even-handed about it, which means splitting as many of these things off as possible. Not only does that require oodles of subjective judgement (at what point does it go from 2 off topics to post to a splittable derailment), but what does one do about the mutliple little amputee threads floating around in all the fora? Merge them into a meta-personalissueswiththisdude thread? Such a thread would be Babel, imo, and far more likely to bring out the worst in people than the best.

Oh, and what dynamic announcements system? :popcorn2:

He he... It's a hack which allows us to post a colorful little banner or html pop-up annoucement based on certain conditionals such as username, usergroup, profile fields, postcount, date, time of day, length of time, and a whole bunch of other really kickass things on the forum home.

We've barely used it. If you log out, you'll see a very simple version of a dynamic announcement, but we can totally play with color and vB code and smilies, too. :)

Here's utopia: everybody wanting to comment, joke or complain about a thread opens a new thread for the purpose, pointing to the old thread and linking to it in the old thread (that might sound like a bit of a derail but the commenter must get the original thread's attention).

Not quite utopia for me, I'm afraid, and I'll tell ya why. Even with the best of intentions behind it, a proliferation of threads about threads can make an environment feel very unwelcoming. Using the example of last night's derailments into discussions of Goliath's communication style, if he had not already created a thread soliciting input on the matter, someone else starting a thread about it every time there was a derailment would surely have looked like a gang-up, forcing him into a defensive posture and putting him in the position of having to justify himself even against his will.

I've seen boards that have a "flame war" or "bbq pit" forum where people can duke shit out, and even though so many of those threads are thrust-and-parry jokes, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of singling someone out in a negative manner without his or her consent. Starting a new thread won't derail another, but even if couched in the gentlest possible terms, the OP can't help but forcefully tap on the shoulder of someone who may not wish to dance.

While writing that sentence, an idea struck me: a "comment on this thread/post" button. Could be helpful...

Very interesting idea... Were you thinking this message would end up as a PM or visible only to the thread-starter/poster, or to everybody as a hover or ...?


Short of that utopia, stating this as a policy and encouraging people to follow it shouldn't be too hard. :baby2: The danger comes when people are actually gagged for not following it - or more likely, feel themselves to be effectively gagged by such a suggestion.

Exactly. The happy medium is always the hardest to find. As I said above though, awareness is always a good first step.

Helen, do you find joke comments as detracting as personal ones? I suspect I'm guilty of a few irrelevant jokes and I can't see myself opening new threads for one-line jokes only funny (if at all) in context.

I agree with Toad that levity is a good thing in any thread. The only time I think jokes can be a real negative is when they take over a thread and therefore seem to belittle a legitimate concern, as vm mentioned here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=17639&postcount=20). I haven't seen anything like that here.

[HelenM]

Do you have any ideas on how best to contain such instances? Off the top of my head, I can think of poster intervention (like luna's plea on seebs' thread), admin intervention (like poster intervention with the weight of defacto authority), thread splits (a very awkward and less than optimal solution, imo), and consensus (we could use the dynamic announcements system, for instance, to point people to this thread and hopefully get broader based input).

Since a founding principle of this board is no moderation, I think it's best not to consider addressing the problem of derailments with methods which introduce moderation, except as a last resort.

I prefer the idea of a peer remonstrating with posters who are derailing a thread, over having mods/admins say something, for the above reason - yet I think it's not ideal because a peer remonstrance perpetuates the derailment.

That leaves consensus, which I suppose is what I was hoping for, when I started this thread. If we're largely agreed that significant derailments of serious discussion threads are undesirable, perhaps we can each make an effort to forgo the personal satisfaction of telling someone what we think of their manner of posting, for the sake of the thread as a whole and the community in general.

Helen

[HelenM]

Helen, your point is an important one. While there are some threads where the OP's intent is clearly light-hearted and open-ended, many or most aren't, and derails do damage them.

I would have waited for an admin response but I see Liv already has. The reason I'm cautious is that attempts to define workable rules, let alone enforce them, leads inexorably to an environment of over-moderation. Imo liv and vm were trying to avoid precisely that in setting up this place.

Indeed. To clarify my intent: I wasn't asking for a ruling so much as hoping to generate some discussion which would indicate whether other posters agree with me in finding the derailments undesirable.

Liv, what is awkward about thread splits? There have been several here and they have been well handled and well received. Are they difficult for the admins? Oh, and what dynamic announcements system? :popcorn2:

I understand about thread splits for derailments being awkward. What do you do with posts that are partly on topic but also contain comments about another poster that rapidly escalate.

Here's utopia: everybody wanting to comment, joke or complain about a thread opens a new thread for the purpose, pointing to the old thread and linking to it in the old thread (that might sound like a bit of a derail but the commenter must get the original thread's attention).

While writing that sentence, an idea struck me: a "comment on this thread/post" button. Could be helpful...

If that is possible, I think that's a great idea - some way to tag a post and indicate that a new thread is related to it although not related enough not to start a new thread.

Short of that utopia, stating this as a policy and encouraging people to follow it shouldn't be too hard. :baby2: The danger comes when people are actually gagged for not following it - or more likely, feel themselves to be effectively gagged by such a suggestion.

As long as this board remains unmoderated it doesn't seem possible that anyone who continually derails threads could find himself/herself 'gagged' for doing so. It seems more likely that someone might start a separate thread asking them whether they realize this is what they are doing and that it frustrates them when threads are continually derailed.

Helen, do you find joke comments as detracting as personal ones? I suspect I'm guilty of a few irrelevant jokes and I can't see myself opening new threads for one-line jokes only funny (if at all) in context.

On the whole jokes here and there don't bother me - in fact I often enjoy them. I'm not concerned about them like I am about other off-topic types of posting because usually jokes don't lead to an escalating derailment, unless there is a kind of implicit collusion among posters to make jokes to invalidate the OP - I've seen this happen elsewhere (or rather I should say, I've seen elsewhere happen after this :giggle: ). It's antithetical to Freethought, imo, to have that sort of behavior here and I haven't seen evidence of it here so far, thankfully.

What concerns me is that I've first visited a few threads here when they are already long and what I've found is, say, three pages on the OP topic and six of posters arguing with one another about something or other which is barely if at all related to the OP. I'm beginning to expect that if a thread on this board is long, it is long because it has at least one significant derailment in it. Which is not a desirable state of affairs, imo.

Helen

[HelenM]

For Dog's sake bring on the irrelevant jokes, from time to time they help to lighten an atmosphere that is becoming too intense. I am guilty of doing just that, sometimes against my own intensity. In a certain situation that eventually resulted in two or maybe more people having left this board, hopefully temporarily, it just might have prevented the gathering storm from developing. C'mon folks we must all guard against the all too human tendency to take ourselves too seriously. On a much wider scale, is that not the cause of most of the world's problems/disputes. A little levity is a good thing.

Yes, I agree. I commented more on jokes in my post immediately above this one, if you're interested.

Helen

[HelenM]

The reason I'm cautious is that attempts to define workable rules, let alone enforce them, leads inexorably to an environment of over-moderation. Imo liv and vm were trying to avoid precisely that in setting up this place.

That's true, but I don't think Helen was suggesting a rule, but rather that we develop, in part via this discussion, a cultural tendancy to avoid such entanglements instead of indulge them. Now's the time to raise the issue because last night saw many examples of diverse threads paralyzed into one basic personal discussion. Even just acknowledging it and keeping it in mind is a big step in the right direction, imo.

Yes, you're right. I wanted to start a discussion and in doing so I stated my own preferences. I wasn't saying "Admins, please make a rule and enforce it" - not at all.

Splitting off discussions derailed into personal issues would, I believe, cause more problems than it solves. First there is the matter of the new OP, which would basically require an admin to point to one post and say "he started it". Awkward, very awkward.

The splitter obviously started the split :D

Not quite utopia for me, I'm afraid, and I'll tell ya why. Even with the best of intentions behind it, a proliferation of threads about threads can make an environment feel very unwelcoming.

And/or boring. If people who visit perceive that most of what happens here is fighting, we will only attract people who enjoy reading fights or fighting. Whereas imo we want to attract people who like interesting discussions as well, by showing that we have lots of them here.

Using the example of last night's derailments into discussions of Goliath's communication style, if he had not already created a thread soliciting input on the matter, someone else starting a thread about it every time there was a derailment would surely have looked like a gang-up, forcing him into a defensive posture and putting him in the position of having to justify himself even against his will.

Good point.

[The button linking to a new thread is a v]ery interesting idea... Were you thinking this message would end up as a PM or visible only to the thread-starter/poster, or to everybody as a hover or ...?

I think some indicators meaning "this post/thread in part motivated my new one" and vice-versa, which are visible to everyone, could be useful and beneficial.

[quote]Helen, do you find joke comments as detracting as personal ones? I suspect I'm guilty of a few irrelevant jokes and I can't see myself opening new threads for one-line jokes only funny (if at all) in context.

I agree with Toad that levity is a good thing in any thread. The only time I think jokes can be a real negative is when they take over a thread and therefore seem to belittle a legitimate concern, as vm mentioned here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=17639&postcount=20). I haven't seen anything like that here.

Yes; I agree with you as I said in one of my responses above this one.

Helen

[JoeP]

Oh, and what dynamic announcements system? :popcorn2:

He he... It's a hack which allows us to post a colorful little banner or html pop-up annoucement based on certain conditionals such as username, usergroup, profile fields, postcount, date, time of day, length of time, and a whole bunch of other really kickass things on the forum home.

We've barely used it. If you log out, you'll see a very simple version of a dynamic announcement, but we can totally play with color and vB code and smilies, too. :)

Log out? What's that? :chin:

[JoeP]

This thread has reached the point where I need more time to do it justice. Perhaps this evening; perhaps later. But I have responses...

[xorbie]

I have to admit I've only skimmed this thread as I have to go eat, but I do have one question. We seem to have come to the consensus that starting individual threads everytime we have a complaint about a poster is bad. In addition, having one massive gargantuan thread is bad. It's also bad to take such complaints in thread....

So where should such discussions take place, or is the subject not to be discussed at all?

[livius drusus]

Well no, I wouldn't say there's consensus yet, xorbie. In any case, there are lots of different circumstances involved in the general discussion. You can of course start any thread you like on any topic you like. I just don't want to be merging split derails into a single frankenstein thread as a matter of administrative practice, nor do I believe that every derailment deserves its own thread.

If someone posts a new thread on a personal issue that came out in another thread, I prefer that it would be posted upon reflection instead of as a vent, but either way I would try to contribute in a productive matter. If someone starts another thread with one already extant, then I would be concerned about the appearance of pile-up and about the burden placed on the person in question and would likely say as much. If it's a general discussion prompted by a heated discussion in another, then I'd post to try and keep to the general terms.

IOW, I would participate in the most productive manner I know how and it's that kind of consensus that I think might help contain our thread wanderlust without stopping individuals from posting as they think is best.

[JoeP]

Rules: we all agree rules are not what anyone supports; case closed.

I understand better the difficulties with admins splitting threads retrospectively.

a "comment on this thread/post" buttonVery interesting idea... Were you thinking this message would end up as a PM or visible only to the thread-starter/poster, or to everybody as a hover or ...?
I was thinking of a button next to “Quote” that would start a new thread and add a reply to the post in question linking to it. But why stop there? This is software after all; anything’s possible. It could leave an extra icon meaning (with the tooltip) “this post/thread has been commented on”. There could be options to make it private.

Splitting off discussions derailed into personal issues would, I believe, cause more problems than it solves. First there is the matter of the new OP, which would basically require an admin to point to one post and say "he started it". Awkward, very awkward.
On the contrary, this seems entirely the right thing to do. Technically, you have the problem that the old thread can’t point to the new thread until after the new thread’s been created, which implies a two-step process.

I feel it would be OK to worry less about SOP. Make starting a new thread standard practice, but make the retrospective splitting of threads up to the request of posters in that thread, as it is now.

Liv, you mention amputee threads (thanks for that image), and a proliferation of threads about threads … what’s so wrong with having these threads in an “About other threads” or “Matters of protocol” or “Meta-discussions” forum? It would be a SMOP (small matter of programming) to set up a user option not to be informed about such threads in a new-threads display, or even to ignore all such threads. They could even be some category in-between regular threads and private messages.

Practically, we may want to set something up before this minor programming is complete :D. I think a new forum for meta-discussions, with separate threads for every derail, is best. But I’m open to other approaches.

perhaps we can each make an effort to forgo the personal satisfaction of telling someone what we think of their manner of posting, for the sake of the thread as a whole and the community in general.
Some forgoing will make the world a better place, but I don’t think it’ll take us far. It’s too close to “no derails are allowed”. Many comments are of value (if handled right).

What do you do with posts that are partly on topic but also contain comments about another poster that rapidly escalate.
The guidance would be for the poster to separate them. Dealing with posts that are mixed despite this guidance would be as now, split at the request of thread particiapants.

indicate that a new thread is related to it although not related enough not to start a new thread.:?

[livius drusus]

I was thinking of a button next to “Quote” that would start a new thread and add a reply to the post in question linking to it. But why stop there? This is software after all; anything’s possible. It could leave an extra icon meaning (with the tooltip) “this post/thread has been commented on”. There could be options to make it private.

I like it a huge helluvalot. The privacy option is potentially troubling, but the general idea is a great one and very much worth exploring in detail.

I feel it would be OK to worry less about SOP. Make starting a new thread standard practice, but make the retrospective splitting of threads up to the request of posters in that thread, as it is now.

Actually that brings up something I hadn't considered before: what do I do if someone requests a split and I think it's a bad idea? I guess it depends on how bad an idea I think it is. Hmmm... Must contemplate.

Anyway, I'm down with not worrying about SOP and making it take it to a new thread the default.

Liv, you mention amputee threads (thanks for that image), and a proliferation of threads about threads … what’s so wrong with having these threads in an “About other threads” or “Matters of protocol” or “Meta-discussions” forum? It would be a SMOP (small matter of programming) to set up a user option not to be informed about such threads in a new-threads display, or even to ignore all such threads. They could even be some category in-between regular threads and private messages.

I love the way you think, snrub. My main concern would be that having a place for meta-discussions might encourage combativeness and/or divisiveness in the rest of forum. The spillage might not be so easily ignored. I wouldn't want another Elsewhere/RRP like at IIDB or JREF's Flame Wars, but I can envision a thread about threads forum which managed to avoid that trap.

Practically, we may want to set something up before this minor programming is complete :D. I think a new forum for meta-discussions, with separate threads for every derail, is best. But I’m open to other approaches.

I would be reluctant to set that up before the, ahem, minor programming, without some understanding of how we could prevent any such forum from becoming a charnel house.

Some forgoing will make the world a better place, but I don’t think it’ll take us far. It’s too close to “no derails are allowed”. Many comments are of value (if handled right).

I tend to agree. I'm just not convinced that a new boilerplate forum will handle them right.

[copiae]

Using the example of last night's derailments into discussions of Goliath's communication style, if he had not already created a thread soliciting input on the matter, someone else starting a thread about it every time there was a derailment would surely have looked like a gang-up, forcing him into a defensive posture and putting him in the position of having to justify himself even against his will.


I believe that I am one of those involved in the derailments into discussions of Goliaths communication style, so, true to my style*, I shall now derail this thread on derailing, and document my side of the story here. Goliath is welcome to post his:

Unfortunately, the timing of Goliaths reply in the anti-theism thread (and my subsequent reply) coincided with a wide variety of posts on Goliaths style of communication, some of which bought Goliath almost to an apoplexy. I was not really aware of the latest onslaught Goliath was facing - if I was, I would not have replied for a little while.

Anyway, its not particularly difficult to see how my reply could have been interpreted as another mischaracterisation and evasion, even though it was not (and Goliath should have noted our previous interactions prior to replying, but a seven minute reply reduces the probability of many things occuring). When he did so though, I lost all interest in further discussing the reasoning behind his hatred with him.

Call me misguided, but I didnt mind doing all that research and stuff on the proviso that he would think about what I was saying - I make no claim to infallibility, and perhaps his thoughts would reveal a serious flaw in my ideas too - not just categorically reject it, or insinuate about my motivations. My farewell post on the thread was just that, a farewell post, with no intentional parting 'shot' or anything else. He posted again, and I thought I would explain to him why I am abandoning this topic, with a simple example (based on the first post I made that day).

My message was reasonably simple: I'd rather you thought about my posts for a bit, prior to posting. It was ignored though, and twelve minutes later, I got another reply. I responded to that which led to his final emotional turmoil post.

I think you will find in my posts that I do not criticize his usage of language (I actually have nothing against how he writes), and nor do I criticize him, I just question his quick replies on convoluted topics.

Finally, I do acknowledge that all my posts on the anti-theism thread were sidetracks, some massively so, and not really worthy of being in that thread, which is why I suggested the thread split. Make my first post the OP, I don't mind. =)


Cheers


* Heh, seriously. Like 90% of my posts on this board have been derails.

[Adora]

If obvious derailments were split earlier, the thread could continue quite easily whilst whatever derailment was shunted over to its own place. It's simply a matter of getting in there before interest in the original topic is killed.

[HelenM]

I was thinking of a button next to “Quote” that would start a new thread and add a reply to the post in question linking to it. But why stop there? This is software after all; anything’s possible. It could leave an extra icon meaning (with the tooltip) “this post/thread has been commented on”. There could be options to make it private.

I thought by 'button' you meant the extra icon you just described, showing that a post has been commented on in a new thread and linking to that thread.
perhaps we can each make an effort to forgo the personal satisfaction of telling someone what we think of their manner of posting, for the sake of the thread as a whole and the community in general.
Some forgoing will make the world a better place, but I don’t think it’ll take us far. It’s too close to “no derails are allowed”. Many comments are of value (if handled right).

I wasn't thinking of total abstinence, necessarily. I'm not sure I'd agree that 'many' comments are of value. Some, perhaps.

indicate that a new thread is related to it although not related enough not to start a new thread.:?

I was trying to say something about the extra icon you proposed - that it links to a thread which is related; but not super-closely related, else the person posting the new thread would have posted in the existing thread instead.

Perhaps that's equally unclear.

Helen

[Dingfod]

How about a comments thread like the journals have?

[JoeP]

Warren, d'ya mean a comments thread on each post, as for each journal entry? Might that not get a bit tortuous?

[Dingfod]

No, I was thinking of a button to enter comments or read comments for the whole thread in question.

[JoeP]

indicate that a new thread is related to it although not related enough not to start a new thread.:?

I was trying to say something about the extra icon you proposed - that it links to a thread which is related; but not super-closely related, else the person posting the new thread would have posted in the existing thread instead.

Perhaps that's equally unclear.

Helen
No, that's more clear, and your original sentence is clear now I understand it. :yup:

I am short of time and inspiration to take this thread further, but I think it is in need of some kind of summary, regrouping and action plan (damn! :fuming: get those business management devils out of my head! :pitch: ) What do we need, some guidelines and a light touch, a separate forum, a bit of software jiggery-pokery?