Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Take on The Thread Derailment Policy.

donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:36:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
To start:

== The Forum is a Product ==

The Forum is a product, and that product has to maintain it's integrity. Forum's main enemies aren't troll, it's thread derailment. Thread derailment destroys a Thread, and makes it pointless. Allowing Thread Derailment is like letting a virus stay in your system. By harming the integrity of a product, that product becomes meaningless.

The point of DDO is not off-base topics and fun... It's intellectualism and debate. You can make a fun thread and have fun and silly conversations, but when an intellectual topic is made, it must be respected. Its point takes priority over you're need to joke around. If you do go off-base, you should make a new thread to continue you're silliness so the original post remains on-topic, but interrupting someone's thread is inappropriate.

As much as it hurts to know it, DDO is primarily for intellectual debate. That theme must come first, or the product (debate) becomes meaningless. Allowing thread derailment harms the integrity of the forum, and threatens it's purpose. This isn't a free-for-all forum.

== DDO is for Debating ==

Someone mentioned that the Forums should be kept separate of the Debates. This isn't true. The forums are meant to be the discussion side of debate, but debate none-the-less. Where you can debate a topic beyond 5 rounds, and with others.

Debates don't allow for that. Forums do. This site's product is debate. The forums are not different. You can have any conversation you want, so long as the threads that are actually meant to follow the purpose of the site are respected.

But, for the sake of discussion, assume the forum shouldn't be for debate.... So? It should still stay on track. What if I post "What is your favorite movie?" And it got derailed? I wouldn't accept that. It'd be inappropriate and ruins the purpose of a forum. A thread is made to follow a topic... Any post outside that topic doesn't belong there. Your thread doesn't have to be intellectual to still need the security of knowing it's main purpose will remain intact.

Ultimately, if I make a thread to be a discussion-debate, that's what it should be. Even if you don't think a forum should be the same as the debates, if I want my thread to be a debate, you can't decide that's wrong, in interrupt it. If you're posts can't remain on topic, then the forum has failed.

== Experience ==

Despite everyone's worries, I've been to other forum. Historum, for example... There, you can, and will, be banned for using too many fallacies. People have been banned for things we consider normal... And you know what? It works.

Historum is the peak of intellectual discussion. To say this policy hurts members simply isn't visible in places where it's in place. If someone takes derailment so religiously that they can't be bothered to start a new thread or just not do it... These people harm the site's integrity. If they leave, that's not inherently bad.

This policy would make threads more meaningful and ensure that, while silly topics can thrive, so can intellectual topics.

== Conclusion ==

The forum's product is debate. That's why it was made. You can make any thread you want, but threads must be respected, and the topic of the thread needs to be upheld. It doesn't hurt a forum to end the thing that threatens the forum most.

If you don't like the concept, say at the top of your thread:
"Off-topic posts and conversations allowed."
However, for everyone who doesn't want their thread deformed and derailed, they benefit from this policy.

== FAQ ==

Does this mean interrupting troll and purposefully-stupid topics is banned?

No. If the thread isn't serious, the policy doesn't apply.

What if the threads already been derailed?

Then the policy doesn't apply. However, once the thread is back on track, the policy re-applies.

What is the punishment of breaking the rule?

A warning. Nothing more. However, if you are a repeat offender, you can be banned. This isn't for breaking the rule, but for repeatedly disobeying warnings.

What if I don't mind derailment?

Then say so at top of your thread.
"Off-topic posts and conversations allowed"
However; you should remember that others posting might enjoy staying on track. You have to write in the OP that the thread can be derailed, so every poster knows it can be before getting passionately involved in the thread.

Can the OP derail a thread?

No. Unless the thread is marked with the warning. When people enter your thread to get involved in the conversation, and they aren't warned that the thread can be derailed, they should have the reassurance that it won't be.

== New FAQ's will appear as questions come up. ==

== End ==
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:40:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
== TLDR ==

The Forum has a purpose. While your thread can go against the purpose, any thread that follows the purpose should be respected.

If you don't like the policy, than void it for your thread by starting it stating it can be derailed. Otherwise, there is no reason some starting a thread should have the reassurance that that thread will stay on tract.

A thread is simply a discussion-like debate. Regardless of what you think a thread should be, if a thread is made for a specific topic, only related posts should be there. Allowing derailment means the forum fails at it's main purpose.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:04:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree but I'm not interested in involving myself in site politics other than to say I support this position.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 2:45:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.

What resolution? Also, derailment is not subjective... everyone knows what counts as derailment, and the policy highlights the definition in case it comes into question. Ultimately, if your post doesn't relate to thread and isn't a small one-shot post (like a single reply, or if it starts as one but becomes a seperate conversation) than it's derailment.
It's not inevitable.... starting new conversations is inevitable. And when they happen, they should be moved to a new thread instead of pollute the current thread. Starting new conversations is okay. Not exporting them to a new thread like you should, however, is when you break the policy.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:04:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 2:45:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.

What resolution? Also, derailment is not subjective... everyone knows what counts as derailment, and the policy highlights the definition in case it comes into question. Ultimately, if your post doesn't relate to thread and isn't a small one-shot post (like a single reply, or if it starts as one but becomes a seperate conversation) than it's derailment.
It's not inevitable.... starting new conversations is inevitable. And when they happen, they should be moved to a new thread instead of pollute the current thread. Starting new conversations is okay. Not exporting them to a new thread like you should, however, is when you break the policy.

It's also guaranteed to prevent those new conversations because participants won't go to a new thread. They'll just lose interest.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:06:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 2:45:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.

What resolution? Also, derailment is not subjective... everyone knows what counts as derailment, and the policy highlights the definition in case it comes into question. Ultimately, if your post doesn't relate to thread and isn't a small one-shot post (like a single reply, or if it starts as one but becomes a seperate conversation) than it's derailment.
It's not inevitable.... starting new conversations is inevitable. And when they happen, they should be moved to a new thread instead of pollute the current thread. Starting new conversations is okay. Not exporting them to a new thread like you should, however, is when you break the policy.

Not all cases of topic-relation are crystal-clear, a great number of them are not, some cultures relate topics in a varying way than others, and some topics are not known in the first place to be related. If I am discussing Nusyari beliefs with a Nusyari and I go into discussions about Hamza Bn Ali. How can a moderator tell if this is derailment or not? Could you even do so? The resolution is the one you are arguing for, that the policy should be applied.

Moreover, if you are following a conversation and it is exported to a new thread each time a tanget is encountered, that would inflate the conversation and make it hard to follow, in that regard, fragmented and dismissed, not to mention that you would not be able to follow properly if you see a middle fragment of the conversation. So surely, what you propose is utopian and impractical, so to speak, beuraticaly stalinist in an organizational sense.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:10:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:04:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:45:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.

What resolution? Also, derailment is not subjective... everyone knows what counts as derailment, and the policy highlights the definition in case it comes into question. Ultimately, if your post doesn't relate to thread and isn't a small one-shot post (like a single reply, or if it starts as one but becomes a seperate conversation) than it's derailment.
It's not inevitable.... starting new conversations is inevitable. And when they happen, they should be moved to a new thread instead of pollute the current thread. Starting new conversations is okay. Not exporting them to a new thread like you should, however, is when you break the policy.

It's also guaranteed to prevent those new conversations because participants won't go to a new thread. They'll just lose interest.

I fail to see the reasoning here. Why wouldn't they go to a new thread? They do for most any other incident where a seperate thread Is made. There is no logical reason to assume they won't move over.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:10:43 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:04:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:45:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.

What resolution? Also, derailment is not subjective... everyone knows what counts as derailment, and the policy highlights the definition in case it comes into question. Ultimately, if your post doesn't relate to thread and isn't a small one-shot post (like a single reply, or if it starts as one but becomes a seperate conversation) than it's derailment.
It's not inevitable.... starting new conversations is inevitable. And when they happen, they should be moved to a new thread instead of pollute the current thread. Starting new conversations is okay. Not exporting them to a new thread like you should, however, is when you break the policy.

It's also guaranteed to prevent those new conversations because participants won't go to a new thread. They'll just lose interest.

I fail to see the reasoning here. Why wouldn't they go to a new thread? They do for most any other incident where a seperate thread Is made. There is no logical reason to assume they won't move over.

Largely because they usually haven't and don't.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:23:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:40:55 AM, donald.keller wrote:
== TLDR ==

The Forum has a purpose. While your thread can go against the purpose, any thread that follows the purpose should be respected.

Each person has a different interpretation of the purpose of the forum. For a lot of people, it's social media and overall entertainment. For others, it's meaningful and constructive discussion about a topic of interest.

Who are you to say which one is "right"? Who am I to say?

If you don't like the policy, than void it for your thread by starting it stating it can be derailed. Otherwise, there is no reason some starting a thread should have the reassurance that that thread will stay on tract.

A thread is simply a discussion-like debate. Regardless of what you think a thread should be, if a thread is made for a specific topic, only related posts should be there. Allowing derailment means the forum fails at it's main purpose.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:38:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:23:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:40:55 AM, donald.keller wrote:
== TLDR ==

The Forum has a purpose. While your thread can go against the purpose, any thread that follows the purpose should be respected.

Each person has a different interpretation of the purpose of the forum. For a lot of people, it's social media and overall entertainment. For others, it's meaningful and constructive discussion about a topic of interest.

Who are you to say which one is "right"? Who am I to say?

If you read over, you're see that I bring up that we all have a different goal for our threads. I want mine to stay on topic, if you don't, then that's great. I shouldn't be forced into dealing with derailment so you can keep it. If you're idea of a thread is that it can be derailed, great, say so in the thread post. You have your way, I have mine. Rejecting the policy so everyone has to have it your way is wrong.

If you don't like the policy, than void it for your thread by starting it stating it can be derailed. Otherwise, there is no reason some starting a thread should have the reassurance that that thread will stay on tract.

A thread is simply a discussion-like debate. Regardless of what you think a thread should be, if a thread is made for a specific topic, only related posts should be there. Allowing derailment means the forum fails at it's main purpose.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:38:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:23:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:40:55 AM, donald.keller wrote:
== TLDR ==

The Forum has a purpose. While your thread can go against the purpose, any thread that follows the purpose should be respected.

Each person has a different interpretation of the purpose of the forum. For a lot of people, it's social media and overall entertainment. For others, it's meaningful and constructive discussion about a topic of interest.

Who are you to say which one is "right"? Who am I to say?

If you read over, you're see that I bring up that we all have a different goal for our threads. I want mine to stay on topic, if you don't, then that's great. I shouldn't be forced into dealing with derailment so you can keep it. If you're idea of a thread is that it can be derailed, great, say so in the thread post. You have your way, I have mine. Rejecting the policy so everyone has to have it your way is wrong.

Keeping the policy so everyone has to have it your way is also wrong.

If you don't like the policy, than void it for your thread by starting it stating it can be derailed. Otherwise, there is no reason some starting a thread should have the reassurance that that thread will stay on tract.

A thread is simply a discussion-like debate. Regardless of what you think a thread should be, if a thread is made for a specific topic, only related posts should be there. Allowing derailment means the forum fails at it's main purpose.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:39:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:12:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:10:43 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:04:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:45:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.

What resolution? Also, derailment is not subjective... everyone knows what counts as derailment, and the policy highlights the definition in case it comes into question. Ultimately, if your post doesn't relate to thread and isn't a small one-shot post (like a single reply, or if it starts as one but becomes a seperate conversation) than it's derailment.
It's not inevitable.... starting new conversations is inevitable. And when they happen, they should be moved to a new thread instead of pollute the current thread. Starting new conversations is okay. Not exporting them to a new thread like you should, however, is when you break the policy.

It's also guaranteed to prevent those new conversations because participants won't go to a new thread. They'll just lose interest.

I fail to see the reasoning here. Why wouldn't they go to a new thread? They do for most any other incident where a seperate thread Is made. There is no logical reason to assume they won't move over.

Largely because they usually haven't and don't.

If you can't be bothered to go through the effort of clicking one extra link, the conversation wasn't worth derailing a thread over.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:40:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:39:57 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:12:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:10:43 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:04:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:45:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.

What resolution? Also, derailment is not subjective... everyone knows what counts as derailment, and the policy highlights the definition in case it comes into question. Ultimately, if your post doesn't relate to thread and isn't a small one-shot post (like a single reply, or if it starts as one but becomes a seperate conversation) than it's derailment.
It's not inevitable.... starting new conversations is inevitable. And when they happen, they should be moved to a new thread instead of pollute the current thread. Starting new conversations is okay. Not exporting them to a new thread like you should, however, is when you break the policy.

It's also guaranteed to prevent those new conversations because participants won't go to a new thread. They'll just lose interest.

I fail to see the reasoning here. Why wouldn't they go to a new thread? They do for most any other incident where a seperate thread Is made. There is no logical reason to assume they won't move over.

Largely because they usually haven't and don't.

If you can't be bothered to go through the effort of clicking one extra link, the conversation wasn't worth derailing a thread over.

It is a sad state of affairs, isn't it?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:43:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:06:24 PM, Roukezian wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:45:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:22:41 PM, Roukezian wrote:
The resolution is impractical as derailment is subjective and inevitable for every reader, and sometimes neccasery to meet at distant points of agreement or discuss points of potential disagreement, this policy only diminishes the fluidity of discussion rendering it mechanistic and dull. The presented one-eyed product-view of the forums ignores the community aspect that the product should appease and is built around, a community that exhibits a fluctuating and unpredictable creativity, and all that dismissal on the basis of a false analogy that derailment is a virus, when it is more like good and bad bacteria, that on one hand, evolves dull discussions into various interesting and fruitful conversations, derailing bad threads that subtly damage the website or turn the forums mediocre, and on another hand, ruins good threads, causing confusion and pointless drama, and so, derailment is not entirely bad, but one of the factors that make us a divergent and colorful community. It also makes no sense that derailment should be explicitly allowed when it is the default state of human conversation, on the contrary, you should clarify you don't want derailment if you are fed up of it.

What resolution? Also, derailment is not subjective... everyone knows what counts as derailment, and the policy highlights the definition in case it comes into question. Ultimately, if your post doesn't relate to thread and isn't a small one-shot post (like a single reply, or if it starts as one but becomes a seperate conversation) than it's derailment.
It's not inevitable.... starting new conversations is inevitable. And when they happen, they should be moved to a new thread instead of pollute the current thread. Starting new conversations is okay. Not exporting them to a new thread like you should, however, is when you break the policy.

Not all cases of topic-relation are crystal-clear, a great number of them are not, some cultures relate topics in a varying way than others, and some topics are not known in the first place to be related. If I am discussing Nusyari beliefs with a Nusyari and I go into discussions about Hamza Bn Ali. How can a moderator tell if this is derailment or not? Could you even do so? The resolution is the one you are arguing for, that the policy should be applied.

The topic is clear enough in any given thread. It need not be a super specific thread. If the topic is "US Culture," then you can post a wide range of things... If the topic is vague, that doesn't nullify your ability to keep on topic.. It simply expense what counts as "on topic".

Moreover, if you are following a conversation and it is exported to a new thread each time a tanget is encountered, that would inflate the conversation and make it hard to follow, in that regard, fragmented and dismissed, not to mention that you would not be able to follow properly if you see a middle fragment of the conversation. So surely, what you propose is utopian and impractical, so to speak, beuraticaly stalinist in an organizational sense.

And? You know what else makes a conversation hard to follow? Thread derailment. But while you're running across 2 or 3 new threads, each can keep it's integrity, and I can continue the conversation I was trying to have. You're pulling a slippery slope here.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:46:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:39:54 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:38:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:23:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:40:55 AM, donald.keller wrote:
== TLDR ==

The Forum has a purpose. While your thread can go against the purpose, any thread that follows the purpose should be respected.

Each person has a different interpretation of the purpose of the forum. For a lot of people, it's social media and overall entertainment. For others, it's meaningful and constructive discussion about a topic of interest.

Who are you to say which one is "right"? Who am I to say?

If you read over, you're see that I bring up that we all have a different goal for our threads. I want mine to stay on topic, if you don't, then that's great. I shouldn't be forced into dealing with derailment so you can keep it. If you're idea of a thread is that it can be derailed, great, say so in the thread post. You have your way, I have mine. Rejecting the policy so everyone has to have it your way is wrong.

Keeping the policy so everyone has to have it your way is also wrong.

Would you kindly reread my post? I literally just said you can post in the thread that it may be derailed. My whole OP literally said that the policy was good because I can have my way, and you can have yours. And we can all be happy.

If you don't like the policy, than void it for your thread by\ starting it stating it can be derailed. Otherwise, there is no reason some starting a thread should have the reassurance that that thread will stay on tract.

A thread is simply a discussion-like debate. Regardless of what you think a thread should be, if a thread is made for a specific topic, only related posts should be there. Allowing derailment means the forum fails at it's main purpose.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:51:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:38:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:23:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:40:55 AM, donald.keller wrote:
== TLDR ==

The Forum has a purpose. While your thread can go against the purpose, any thread that follows the purpose should be respected.

Each person has a different interpretation of the purpose of the forum. For a lot of people, it's social media and overall entertainment. For others, it's meaningful and constructive discussion about a topic of interest.

Who are you to say which one is "right"? Who am I to say?

If you read over, you're see that I bring up that we all have a different goal for our threads. I want mine to stay on topic, if you don't, then that's great. I shouldn't be forced into dealing with derailment so you can keep it. If you're idea of a thread is that it can be derailed, great, say so in the thread post. You have your way, I have mine. Rejecting the policy so everyone has to have it your way is wrong.

If you don't like the policy, than void it for your thread by starting it stating it can be derailed. Otherwise, there is no reason some starting a thread should have the reassurance that that thread will stay on tract.

A thread is simply a discussion-like debate. Regardless of what you think a thread should be, if a thread is made for a specific topic, only related posts should be there. Allowing derailment means the forum fails at it's main purpose.

I've come to the opinion that moderation should really be as hands off as possible. If there's illegal crap going on, moderation can contact the relevant authorities. Outside of that, spam, doxxing, multiboxing, that's really what I think moderation should deal with.

My main experience with moderation here has been with one user, and I only wanted to involve moderation because moderators had previously banned someone else I perceived to have been far less disruptive to this website over offenses the moderators refused to disclose. Had moderators not intervened in that prior instance, I wouldn't have bothered with asking for a ban. My point is that with every single extra criteria for intervention, moderators open a pandora's box of secondary and tertiary issues that they are more than likely ill-equipped to deal with. They proved ill-equipped to deal with my own concerns, and that one went on for well over a year. That was just one issue.

Given how moderators work here, they're going to refuse to tell people on a specific forum exactly what constitutes derailment...they're going to keep it private and keep the public clueless as to WTF is going here. This is only going to cause cascading problems that grow exponentially.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:11:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Im looking at Historum, and they are pretty edgy.

Clear the infection and let the body heal. Once we're gone the Earth will go back to its natural cycles. It might have to start from almost zero, say life around the black smokers, but it will return. And if everything else is lucky there won't be anything like humans develop in the future.

As humans begin to die out there will be less and less pollution and nature will balance itself long before humans become extinct.

Seriously, fvck these people with a metal cactus. You won't believe how much I hate these Debbie Downers.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 6:17:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Donald, Airmax said that preaching about God on a the relgion forum on atheism would be considered derailment, when according your special pleading, god and atheism are related under Religious Belief, and so what Airmax said shouldn't apply if were to follow your more general form of detecting derailment. Moroever, if you should follow a general topic, and not a specific one, I can derail any thread on "US culture" by offering ad hoc subtopics and engaging in adhoc subtopic arguments, which would be permissble as they fall under the general topic. And so the policy doesn't work either ways, in both the general sense which you described and the narrow sense which I described. So why have it? Also, a derailed forum is easier to follow than a fragmented multithreaded discussion. At least you can follow the two nicknames in an argument by skipping the nonsense in between, as opposed to the latter where you would have no sense of direction or map of navigation to go across the points and counterpoints.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:04:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:51:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:38:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/26/2015 3:23:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:40:55 AM, donald.keller wrote:
== TLDR ==

The Forum has a purpose. While your thread can go against the purpose, any thread that follows the purpose should be respected.

Each person has a different interpretation of the purpose of the forum. For a lot of people, it's social media and overall entertainment. For others, it's meaningful and constructive discussion about a topic of interest.

Who are you to say which one is "right"? Who am I to say?

If you read over, you're see that I bring up that we all have a different goal for our threads. I want mine to stay on topic, if you don't, then that's great. I shouldn't be forced into dealing with derailment so you can keep it. If you're idea of a thread is that it can be derailed, great, say so in the thread post. You have your way, I have mine. Rejecting the policy so everyone has to have it your way is wrong.

If you don't like the policy, than void it for your thread by starting it stating it can be derailed. Otherwise, there is no reason some starting a thread should have the reassurance that that thread will stay on tract.

A thread is simply a discussion-like debate. Regardless of what you think a thread should be, if a thread is made for a specific topic, only related posts should be there. Allowing derailment means the forum fails at it's main purpose.

I've come to the opinion that moderation should really be as hands off as possible. If there's illegal crap going on, moderation can contact the relevant authorities. Outside of that, spam, doxxing, multiboxing, that's really what I think moderation should deal with.

My main experience with moderation here has been with one user, and I only wanted to involve moderation because moderators had previously banned someone else I perceived to have been far less disruptive to this website over offenses the moderators refused to disclose. Had moderators not intervened in that prior instance, I wouldn't have bothered with asking for a ban. My point is that with every single extra criteria for intervention, moderators open a pandora's box of secondary and tertiary issues that they are more than likely ill-equipped to deal with. They proved ill-equipped to deal with my own concerns, and that one went on for well over a year. That was just one issue.

Given how moderators work here, they're going to refuse to tell people on a specific forum exactly what constitutes derailment...they're going to keep it private and keep the public clueless as to WTF is going here. This is only going to cause cascading problems that grow exponentially.

This is probably the best analysis I have seen on the subject on this site. This site is special compared to most other sites and moderation. Don't you think so?
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:20:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:19:50 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a thread that could use kittens.

http://images.wisegeek.com...

KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kittens indeed.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:22:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:20:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:50 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a thread that could use kittens.

http://images.wisegeek.com...

KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kittens indeed.

PUPPIES!!!!!!!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:25:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:22:22 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:50 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a thread that could use kittens.

http://images.wisegeek.com...

KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



lol that is very strange....
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:26:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:25:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:22:22 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:50 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a thread that could use kittens.

http://images.wisegeek.com...

KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



lol that is very strange....

Every needs to know how to smack an estranged animal. If our younger generation needs to learn one thing, how to spank a monkey would be the most relative skill in life.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:28:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:26:21 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:25:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:22:22 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:50 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a thread that could use kittens.

http://images.wisegeek.com...

KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



lol that is very strange....

Every needs to know how to smack an estranged animal. If our younger generation needs to learn one thing, how to spank a monkey would be the most relative skill in life.

I am going to practice spanking the monkey right now!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:28:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:26:21 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:25:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:22:22 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:50 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a thread that could use kittens.

http://images.wisegeek.com...

KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



lol that is very strange....

Every needs to know how to smack an estranged animal. If our younger generation needs to learn one thing, how to spank a monkey would be the most relative skill in life.

Words of wisdom.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:28:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:28:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:26:21 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:25:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:22:22 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:50 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a thread that could use kittens.

http://images.wisegeek.com...

KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



lol that is very strange....

Every needs to know how to smack an estranged animal. If our younger generation needs to learn one thing, how to spank a monkey would be the most relative skill in life.

I am going to practice spanking the monkey right now!

To elsa porn... right?
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:29:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:28:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:26:21 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:25:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:22:22 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:50 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a thread that could use kittens.

http://images.wisegeek.com...

KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



lol that is very strange....

Every needs to know how to smack an estranged animal. If our younger generation needs to learn one thing, how to spank a monkey would be the most relative skill in life.

I am going to practice spanking the monkey right now!

Please rate your experience, I may contact your for employment opportunities promptly after I finish this essay.