The thread where Scott Disagrees with everything
-
@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..
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@g.jacobse said:
@thanksajdotcom
That is a good point AJ - It's unlikely that any of us plan to 'derail' a conversation.....except PSX of course...
