The thread where Scott Disagrees with everything
-
@g.jacobse said:
@thanksajdotcom
That is a good point AJ - It's unlikely that any of us plan to 'derail' a conversation.. Conversations need to evolve... after all - Didn't we evolve?Not touching the latter half of that, but yes, none of us plan to derail a thread, but then again, conversations held face-to-face change, grow and alter course. Why would we expect an online discussion to do any less?
-
Wait, that's every thread, right?
-
OK, so the two guys who love to derail threads, and can't really handle standard interaction agree, derailing is standard evolution. i apologize, back to work
-
but the point of it, even if brought out by frustration is well documented, By @scottalanmiller
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/262564-ask-your-own-question
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller derails but he's not the only one. Also, conversations evolve. Let them.
I feel like I'm only ever called out for derailing when the thread already derailed and someone doesn't like the opinion. It is never about derailing. I've also come to find that "derailing" is an attempt to win an discussion through external means. Calling an evolving conversation a derailment I think is inappropriate. I responded to something that was not called a derailment, yet responding to what was said made me the derailer? I'm not sure how that is even possible.
The first thing in the thread that wasn't a flow from a previous post was the call of derailment, from what I can see.
Even the topic of disconnecting is really a topic about careers and career factors. How is choosing a different career and examining alternative careers not part of the original conversation?
-
@Hubtech said:
OK, so the two guys who love to derail threads, and can't really handle standard interaction agree, derailing is standard evolution. i apologize, back to work
Wait, but from what I see, you were the one derailing. You are the first one to post something that wasn't part of the conversation?
-
great, now i wear the crown of the great derailer. so good i didn't even know i had it in me!
-
@JaredBusch said:
but the point of it, even if brought out by frustration is well documented, By @scottalanmiller
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/262564-ask-your-own-question
I agree, a new question, should always have a new thread so that the discussion can focus on the question to resolve.
But a discussion isn't a question. This was still discussing the original topic, I think, not a new one. Because it was really a discussion, not a question to resolve with a definitive answer.
-
@Hubtech said:
great, now i wear the crown of the great derailer. so good i didn't even know i had it in me!
Well you were happy to throw that label at me for participating in the ongoing discussion. Why?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Wait, but from what I see, you were the one derailing. You are the first one to post something that wasn't part of the conversation?
Derailing happened long before he commented. converations evolve, yes. But that does not mean that it should have stayed in the thread. that is the point.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Wait, but from what I see, you were the one derailing. You are the first one to post something that wasn't part of the conversation?
Derailing happened long before he commented. converations evolve, yes. But that does not mean that it should have stayed in the thread. that is the point.
And that's why NodeBB needs a split function so mods can move it out.
-
Who is to decide how a conversation leads? If we had "derailment police" what would they do? Would any related comment but not a direct answer, be disallowed? What does derailment even mean? I'm serious with this question. People throw this term around but I almost exclusively see it said in reference to a natural progression of discussion and not to an abrupt derailment with an unrelated post being thrown in.
When does something become a derailment versus a flow of conversation? And why is it bad? If we don't allow conversations to move organically we end up with dead threads and little to discuss, right?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Wait, but from what I see, you were the one derailing. You are the first one to post something that wasn't part of the conversation?
Derailing happened long before he commented. converations evolve, yes. But that does not mean that it should have stayed in the thread. that is the point.
-
@Hubtech said:
spidey!
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Wait, but from what I see, you were the one derailing. You are the first one to post something that wasn't part of the conversation?
Derailing happened long before he commented. converations evolve, yes. But that does not mean that it should have stayed in the thread. that is the point.
And that's why NodeBB needs a split function so mods can move it out.
That would be nice, I would love to see that. Although it still becomes a difficult thing to know when a discussion becomes new versus just being part of the existing one.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Wait, but from what I see, you were the one derailing. You are the first one to post something that wasn't part of the conversation?
Derailing happened long before he commented. converations evolve, yes. But that does not mean that it should have stayed in the thread. that is the point.
So what post was the point of derailment? And what makes it a derailment? How do we define the moment that a thread is no longer on topic and what form should a new thread take?
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Wait, but from what I see, you were the one derailing. You are the first one to post something that wasn't part of the conversation?
Derailing happened long before he commented. converations evolve, yes. But that does not mean that it should have stayed in the thread. that is the point.
So what post was the point of derailment? And what makes it a derailment? How do we define the moment that a thread is no longer on topic and what form should a new thread take?
I agree. Conversations naturally progress into different topics that are linked in one way or another. The whole thing about derailment should be left to the OP. If they feel their questions hasn't been answered and the current conversation in the thread they started will not get them to an answer they need, (notice I didn't say want), then they should be the ones to ask to refocus or go back to something, not anyone else.
-
-
@g.jacobse said:
@thanksajdotcom
That is a good point AJ - It's unlikely that any of us plan to 'derail' a conversation..
