Board index › Administration › WrongPlanet.net discussion

What is WP for?

Page 4 of 4 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Hedly
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 4 Sep 2022
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 10:28 am

Twilightprincess wrote:
Hedly wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Just to give an extremely recent example of what I'm talking about, in the "Trump Demands" thread in News, any mention of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy was deemed to be off topic (and not by the OP either) and forced into a separate thread, despite the fact that said controversy was the reason Trump was citing in making his demands. How are we supposed to discuss the news when the context surrounding the story is classified as off topic?

Given that the Hunter Biden laptop controversy is a highly contentious topic in and of itself, it makes perfect sense to me to put that debate in a separate thread.

To me it seems best to have no more than one highly contentious topic per thread. If topic A depends on topic B for context, then posts in thread A could contain links to relevant posts in thread B, instead of making arguments on topic B directly.


That seems like a rather fragmented approach to conversation. Why not let the topic evolve in an organic way?

Well, instead of talking about the topic at hand it often turns into a “discussion” that’s already going on in another thread. The OP should be able to explore the subject that they broached in their initial post without it turning into an off-topic argument.

This is less of a problem in fun, lighthearted threads, I think. It’s more of an issue in serious threads.


In a poltical discussion, there are many connections that need to be explored.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,838
Location: Hell

06 Sep 2022, 10:37 am

Hedly wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Hedly wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Just to give an extremely recent example of what I'm talking about, in the "Trump Demands" thread in News, any mention of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy was deemed to be off topic (and not by the OP either) and forced into a separate thread, despite the fact that said controversy was the reason Trump was citing in making his demands. How are we supposed to discuss the news when the context surrounding the story is classified as off topic?

Given that the Hunter Biden laptop controversy is a highly contentious topic in and of itself, it makes perfect sense to me to put that debate in a separate thread.

To me it seems best to have no more than one highly contentious topic per thread. If topic A depends on topic B for context, then posts in thread A could contain links to relevant posts in thread B, instead of making arguments on topic B directly.


That seems like a rather fragmented approach to conversation. Why not let the topic evolve in an organic way?

Well, instead of talking about the topic at hand it often turns into a “discussion” that’s already going on in another thread. The OP should be able to explore the subject that they broached in their initial post without it turning into an off-topic argument.

This is less of a problem in fun, lighthearted threads, I think. It’s more of an issue in serious threads.


In a poltical discussion, there are many connections that need to be explored.

Sometimes posters try to turn a thread into an argument that’s already being explored elsewhere.

The mods usually consider what the author of the thread wants when it comes to this issue.



Joe90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,492
Location: UK

06 Sep 2022, 10:41 am

Usually when Trump somehow gets brought into a thread then American members get a bit excited and the thread turns into a minefield, even though most of us non-Americans don't give two craps about him and don't see what the obsession is with the bloke.


_________________
Female


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,728
Location: New York City (Queens)

06 Sep 2022, 10:51 am

Hedly wrote:
In a poltical discussion, there are many connections that need to be explored.

In political discussions in particular, if the topic isn't constrained, the discussion is much more likely to get extremely heated.

The connections between different political topics can be topics unto themselves, each in its own thread.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.


Hedly
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 4 Sep 2022
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 11:14 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
Hedly wrote:
In a poltical discussion, there are many connections that need to be explored.

In political discussions in particular, if the topic isn't constrained, the discussion is much more likely to get extremely heated.

The connections between different political topics can be topics unto themselves, each in its own thread.


You can't have a meaningful conversation in a,vacuum.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,838
Location: Hell

06 Sep 2022, 11:15 am

Hedly wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
Hedly wrote:
In a poltical discussion, there are many connections that need to be explored.

In political discussions in particular, if the topic isn't constrained, the discussion is much more likely to get extremely heated.

The connections between different political topics can be topics unto themselves, each in its own thread.


You can't have a meaningful conversation in a,vacuum.

Many on-topic, meaningful conversations take place here.



Hedly
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 4 Sep 2022
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 11:20 am

Twilightprincess wrote:
Hedly wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
Hedly wrote:
In a poltical discussion, there are many connections that need to be explored.

In political discussions in particular, if the topic isn't constrained, the discussion is much more likely to get extremely heated.

The connections between different political topics can be topics unto themselves, each in its own thread.


You can't have a meaningful conversation in a,vacuum.

Many on-topic, meaningful conversations take place here.


I'm sure, but that's rather beside my point.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,838
Location: Hell

06 Sep 2022, 11:24 am

Hedly wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Hedly wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
Hedly wrote:
In a poltical discussion, there are many connections that need to be explored.

In political discussions in particular, if the topic isn't constrained, the discussion is much more likely to get extremely heated.

The connections between different political topics can be topics unto themselves, each in its own thread.


You can't have a meaningful conversation in a,vacuum.

Many on-topic, meaningful conversations take place here.


I'm sure, but that's rather beside my point.

It seems to negate your point.

People can have differing opinions here. They should probably avoid derailing threads with a contentious side point that will start an argument and/or is worthy of its own thread.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,728
Location: New York City (Queens)

06 Sep 2022, 11:26 am

Hedly wrote:
Why not let the topic evolve in an organic way?

To an extent this is okay.

However, there need to be some constraints. What works well in one-to-one conversation, or in a small group of friends, does NOT necessarily work well in a larger group. A large-group conversation needs to be more structured and focused.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

06 Sep 2022, 2:05 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
I'd say it depends on the specifics of how these other issues get discussed. For example, it seems to me that "a discussion about how the OP phrased their question" is okay if it doesn't go on for too long, and if it results in the OP re-phrasing the question in a way that's clearer and gets better answers than it could have gotten otherwise. On the other hand, if the OP's wording gets discussed at length, in a way that doesn't actually clarify anything relevant to the main topic but is just an excuse for other people to talk about their own pet peeves, that's a derailment.


I haven't really come across the first example, usually it's people picking holes in what the OP said, which is annoying.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


Hedly
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 4 Sep 2022
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 3:23 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
Hedly wrote:
Why not let the topic evolve in an organic way?

To an extent this is okay.

However, there need to be some constraints. What works well in one-to-one conversation, or in a small group of friends, does NOT necessarily work well in a larger group. A large-group conversation needs to be more structured and focused.


I'm not big on rigid structure. But that's just me. I'm kind of an advocate of freestyle conversations.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,728
Location: New York City (Queens)

06 Sep 2022, 4:19 pm

Hedly wrote:
I'm kind of an advocate of freestyle conversations.

Alas, "freestyle conversations" in large Internet forums tend to become cesspools. 4chan is the most infamous example, but I've seen plenty of others as well, e.g. Usenet back in the mid-to-late-1990's.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.


Hedly
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 4 Sep 2022
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 6:53 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
Hedly wrote:
I'm kind of an advocate of freestyle conversations.

Alas, "freestyle conversations" in large Internet forums tend to become cesspools. 4chan is the most infamous example, but I've seen plenty of others as well, e.g. Usenet back in the mid-to-late-1990's.


I'm not big on controlling conversations. It seems quite ridiculous to me. Eventually it becomes a form of censorship. And when that happens...well, it doesn't end well.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Sep 2022, 6:55 pm

I'm not big on censorship, either.

But there's an excellent rule here about "personal insults."

One can insult ideas here, but not people.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

16 Sep 2022, 9:43 am

Conversations, both online, and IRL tend to drift from topic to topic much like a lone person's train of thought tends to go from one topic to the next. Organically, and gradually.

But if were all talking about Alex Jones spreading lies, and Person X jumps in and says "you all are bunch of dunderheads because you care about Alex Jones...what about the lies the government tells?"

Its sudden, its disrepectful to others on the thread, AND its ALSO illogical. Illogical because one of the reasons that we are all discussing AJ is because ...he lies that the Government is telling specific lies - and even staging fake mass murders. So if you're worried about the government telling real lies then thats ALL THE MORE REASON to be concerned about someone like AJ who muddies the issue - and makes it hard to tell which are the real lies that the govt might really be telling from the hysterical false accusations of lying that someone AJ makes about the govt.

Clearly Person X would be practicing "derailing", and doing so in nasty, abrupt, and in frankly a rather self defeating way.

Person X would be better off starting a seperate thread. He could even reference the first thread by "saying folks are upset about AJ, but not about the govt". And then proceed to make whatever his point is.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,547
Location: Right over your left shoulder

16 Sep 2022, 12:43 pm

Joe90 wrote:
Usually when Trump somehow gets brought into a thread then American members get a bit excited and the thread turns into a minefield, even though most of us non-Americans don't give two craps about him and don't see what the obsession is with the bloke.


I'm not sure it's most non-Americans, often there's several non-Americans who are just as interested in bickering over him.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.