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 might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.
That can work, but not in a linear fashion like Mangolassi's, Spiceworks, or other topic/response based communities.....
But is this not the purpose of these communities? Reddit does have a system for this, it is also impossible to follow except for after the conversation is over. While it is happening, it is useless.
At least here we have forking so once a topic slows down enough to do the forking, we can make different topics out of it when appropriate.
IMO, forking should be the exception, not the rule. You shouldn't have to come in and clean up topics without some form of self-moderation and determine that "hey, maybe this isn't related specifically with the OP, why not create a new topic?"
Again, I'm not here for organic conversation about the history of backups and work ethics. I shouldn't have to unsubscribe from my own topic because people can't control themselves and create their own thread.
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
What you say is bad, sounds to be like a healthy discussion. If you had a talk with people in real life and it died in ten seconds and no one looked to help each other understand the factors and grow, that would be boring at least and potentially quite bad.
That every topic does it here shows that there are lots of people who really care. It's not like it is the same discussion every time, it's a unique continuation of the original topic.
But I didn't ask. I didn't ask for people to comment on anything BUT the Cerber ransomware. It's like you're sitting in a room, and I put a sign on the door "Ransomware making the rounds" and you come in and start talking about backups - - - that's just rude.
What I'm saying is - If the conversation dies, then so be it. That's how these kinds of topics go. Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents. If I'm unsubbing from my own topic, there's something wrong.
I have to quote this entire section (it's worth re-reading).
@Rob-Dunn sorry this is going to sound like an insult.
What is the difference between a moderator forking a topic and someone creating a new topic? (I do understand what you're saying) but the OP of whatever topic, evolved to discuss the new underlying topic of the thread.
So to fork a topic is literally cutting off the origin of the new subtopic of the thread.
If you want to unsub from the OP because it's evolved into a topic about the new sub topic, do it and don't complain.
I've asked for topics to be forked before, because it's only made sense. I've also wished some topics haven't been forked because it breaks up the conversation.
Vary rarely has it worked well to the flow of the conversation as a whole.
-
WTF is an organic conversation?
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
But I didn't ask. I didn't ask for people to comment on anything BUT the Cerber ransomware. It's like you're sitting in a room, and I put a sign on the door "Ransomware making the rounds" and you come in and start talking about backups - - - that's just rude.
I don't see it like that. I see it as a large group of people having a discussion, someone throws out a topic and people discuss. You can't really "only" discuss the initial topic, if anyone offers ANY additional opinion or asks ANY question, that's a derailment to someone. Every post is a derailment to someone. Why are the backups less a direct response to the topic as anything else?
-
@DenisKelley said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
WTF is an organic conversation?
A normal one where topics lead directly from one to another rather than having non-sequiturs where someone tries to switch topics.
-
For example, every conversation in real life. You ask about restaurants, then people discuss what is their favourite restaurant and why. While LEADS to talking about the traffic to get there or the neighbourhood that it is in or this question about what organic conversations are.
In the same vein as the original fork, asking what an organic conversation is is a "derailment" in a conversation about how to deal with these things. But it's organic, it's a natural part of the conversation.
So if you were trying to sneakily show how it happens and why it can never not happen, you made a perfect example
-
@DustinB3403 said in 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 might seem like every thread does this... that's because we have a vibrant community of people who actually discuss the topics. To the person who has an intended line of discussion in mind, everything feels like a derailment. To the people having a natural conversation, it isn't a derailment, it's one continuous line of thought and conversation.
That can work, but not in a linear fashion like Mangolassi's, Spiceworks, or other topic/response based communities.....
But is this not the purpose of these communities? Reddit does have a system for this, it is also impossible to follow except for after the conversation is over. While it is happening, it is useless.
At least here we have forking so once a topic slows down enough to do the forking, we can make different topics out of it when appropriate.
IMO, forking should be the exception, not the rule. You shouldn't have to come in and clean up topics without some form of self-moderation and determine that "hey, maybe this isn't related specifically with the OP, why not create a new topic?"
Again, I'm not here for organic conversation about the history of backups and work ethics. I shouldn't have to unsubscribe from my own topic because people can't control themselves and create their own thread.
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
What you say is bad, sounds to be like a healthy discussion. If you had a talk with people in real life and it died in ten seconds and no one looked to help each other understand the factors and grow, that would be boring at least and potentially quite bad.
That every topic does it here shows that there are lots of people who really care. It's not like it is the same discussion every time, it's a unique continuation of the original topic.
But I didn't ask. I didn't ask for people to comment on anything BUT the Cerber ransomware. It's like you're sitting in a room, and I put a sign on the door "Ransomware making the rounds" and you come in and start talking about backups - - - that's just rude.
What I'm saying is - If the conversation dies, then so be it. That's how these kinds of topics go. Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents. If I'm unsubbing from my own topic, there's something wrong.
I have to quote this entire section (it's worth re-reading).
@Rob-Dunn sorry this is going to sound like an insult.
What is the difference between a moderator forking a topic and someone creating a new topic? (I do understand what you're saying) but the OP of whatever topic, evolved to discuss the new underlying topic of the thread.
So to fork a topic is literally cutting off the origin of the new subtopic of the thread.
If you want to unsub from the OP because it's evolved into a topic about the new sub topic, do it and don't complain.
I've asked for topics to be forked before, because it's only made sense. I've also wished some topics haven't been forked because it breaks up the conversation.
Vary rarely has it worked well to the flow of the conversation as a whole.
It's important to note that because it is not a true derailment, there is never an obvious moment when you would start a new thread, that's what makes it organic. It's just people having a conversation, one post leading to the next. No one is thinking "hey, I'm asking something not quite related." One person posts an opinion or question, someone responds. Each person is just continuing the conversation, there is no person who changed the course or intended to, they think that they are just continuing the same discussion.
That's why people don't agree when it has derailed, because it takes a non-sequitur for that to really happen.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@DenisKelley said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
WTF is an organic conversation?
A normal one where topics lead directly from one to another rather than having non-sequiturs where someone tries to switch topics.
I call Buzzword Bingo!
http://marianlibrarian.com/2010/09/16/12-social-media-buzzwords-redefined/ -
But in this situation, we had 3 different discussions all happening in the same thread. .. Forking, in this instance, I think was not a bad thing...
TL;DR: Holy Thread Forking, Batman!
-
@dafyre said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
But in this situation, we had 3 different discussions all happening in the same thread. .. Forking, in this instance, I think was not a bad thing...
TL;DR: Holy Thread Forking, Batman!
What the fork?
-
@dafyre said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
But in this situation, we had 3 different discussions all happening in the same thread. .. Forking, in this instance, I think was not a bad thing...
TL;DR: Holy Thread Forking, Batman!
However, as we've shown in quite a few of these, the big divergence happened AFTER someone threw in a non-sequitur which was, as it has been many times before, the sudden jump from organic conversation that had led from the original topic to one of social media management and derailments. Every thread where someone suddenly comes in and says "derailment" immediately leaps all over the place (because it makes the people who were still discussing the original topic want to scatter and other people fill the gap, I guess.)
Looking at the part prior to the bit where the derailment topic started, I couldn't figure out where exactly things had happened.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@dafyre said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
But in this situation, we had 3 different discussions all happening in the same thread. .. Forking, in this instance, I think was not a bad thing...
TL;DR: Holy Thread Forking, Batman!
However, as we've shown in quite a few of these, the big divergence happened AFTER someone threw in a non-sequitur which was, as it has been many times before, the sudden jump from organic conversation that had led from the original topic to one of social media management and derailments. Every thread where someone suddenly comes in and says "derailment" immediately leaps all over the place (because it makes the people who were still discussing the original topic want to scatter and other people fill the gap, I guess.)
Looking at the part prior to the bit where the derailment topic started, I couldn't figure out where exactly things had happened.
So what about that triple over time game last night.
3 on 3 with a goalie. That was awesome.
Fork it!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
-
@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:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
I didn't think that it had. I was not following it from the very beginning. At no point did I see it make a leap until we started talking about derailments. Until that point, I had not see a specific change. What post do you felt changed it? You were the one that said it shifted, I'm the one that said it did not, so asking me where I think it didn't happen would be.... everywhere.
-
@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:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
Here are the first three comments.
So which one do you feel was off topic? If the post was purely information and did not warrant further discussion, all three are "off topic" but that measure.
One is joking-ish. One is stating that he avoided it. One was raising the issue of users not caring and being annoyed by the resulting situation.
All three are organically following the topic, none are in a response to a question or needed. All three would result in you wanting to unsub from the topic as they don't provide value back to the OP given that there is no question to answer.
So by that measure, I'd say every response was off topic. But I don't agree with that assessment.
-
At the end of the day guys, the way the topics flow is a hot mess.
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.
It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in 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:
Start a new thread of your own if you want to discuss the tangents.
So, in the case in question, who would have done that, for example? At what point did it change topics?
How about I ask you?
Why don't you tell me where you think it shifted?
Here are the first three comments.
So which one do you feel was off topic? If the post was purely information and did not warrant further discussion, all three are "off topic" but that measure.
One is joking-ish. One is stating that he avoided it. One was raising the issue of users not caring and being annoyed by the resulting situation.
All three are organically following the topic, none are in a response to a question or needed. All three would result in you wanting to unsub from the topic as they don't provide value back to the OP given that there is no question to answer.
So by that measure, I'd say every response was off topic. But I don't agree with that assessment.
Of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The thing is - and I can't believe I'm writing this - is if you are creating a new point that warrants additional discussion that is not directly related to the original topic at hand, it should be forked to a new topic. As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen, and so I commented, politely, to please start a new one, and everyone ignored that and kept on going anyway.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in [Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork](/topic/9098/ransomware-conversation-derailment-
As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen.
So only a seasoned user should create new topics then as they know when a new topic should be created.
Everyone else is still discussing the original thread, but with new details.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
@Rob-Dunn said in [Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork](/topic/9098/ransomware-conversation-derailment-
As a seasoned user of the Internet, I have trained my discerning eye to determine when that might be about to happen.
So only a seasoned user should create new topics then as they know when a new topic should be created.
Everyone else is still discussing the original thread, but with new details.
This is after it was forked - to your point, it's probably due to how things are moderated. If a person can't determine when they should start a new thread, the moderator should do it before it gets too far down the road.
-
@Rob-Dunn said in Ransomware Conversation Derailment Discussion Fork:
It seems to be that there is a common thread (pun intended) that every time anyone disputes anything here, they are railroaded into submission, and it seems to be happening here.
Well there are two possible ways for it to go. Either we are railroading into submission by just accepting the OP opinion without discussion. Or if we discussion the opposing point we get told we are railroading people into submission.
Isn't the complaint then that I'm not just letting you dictate but am proposing the counter argument? If I didn't, wouldn't you be the one railroading rather than me (which is what you are implying.)
