I agree with this. Thread drift is the natural evolution of conversation. In real conversation, it would be very stilted if we were forced to "stay on topic.z" I think the same is true of internet conversation.Originally Posted by Justin '77
"My truck has 170,000 miles on it and the MPG is so bad that every time I start it, the ghost of an Indian appears in the passenger seat and cries."
--John Cheese
*INFJ Joneser*
Please join my Facebook group, Fans of the Fourth Turning.
I agree with you and Justin.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Then that rule needs to be changed, since there's nothing wrong with that thread.
Let us use our tools, rather than allowing them to drive us.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ŕ moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
I remember the reaction when John Xenakis tried to corral the threads into polite focused discussions. It diidn't work. In fact, it made for a lot of aggravated posters. That's when Zarathustra left, after being one of the main posters for a long time. Vince Lamb left as well. Others cut back.It's difficult to enforce some rules in a constructive manner without knowing the context of a discussion.
And if someone only monitors "reported" posts, there is no context.
With very few exceptions, we're all adults. We should be able to manage this with minimal moderation ... as we have for the last 10 years. I've witnessed very few shrinking violets, and plenty of bright interesting people. That we dion't agree is the popint of the discussion. That it wanders about is par for the course.
My $0.02
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Being fairly guilty of "topic drift" myself, I'd say that in some cases topic drift is disruptive and distracting. In others it is natural and engaging, sometimes a well needed diversion from a topic that has petered out. The ability to determine the difference is where a moderator is required.
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Are there departure points, where too much really is TOO much? Of course. But let's set the bar pretty high (or is that low) so the bounds are non-restirctive. I found the Zara-Xenakis battles to be entertaining and frankly enlightening. For those less interested, placing either or both on ignore would have solved the problem. The same could be said for Marc Lamb, though Marc made humilitaing his enemies his reason for existing. Ignoring him was still a real possibility. If a person becomes relentless, to the point that ignoring hir is inadequate, that bar can be safely assumed to be reached.
So, if I have a vote, I vote for openness.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
I'm okay with whatever the rules.... just as long as I can still "oink" on occasion.
As an aside, do you think it was actually my comments about wanting a donut that got Lady V to make the connection?
Mmmmmm, donuts.
Oink!
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
It depends on what you mean by "Stay on Topic".
If you mean that the goal of the forum should be to discuss generational theory and that unrelated things will be removed, that's fine, as long as you provide a clearly marked off-topic sub-forum where people can talk about whatever they'd like. There are probably ways in which the discussion would benefit from such a thing.* However, that would require a restructuring of the forum, clear guidelines about what goes where, and a degree of moderation well beyond what we've seen here historically.
If, on the other hand, the goal is to keep individual threads on topic, that's probably possible, but pointless unless it serves a specific end. Such a policy would likely become needlessly pedantic and subject to the whims of individual posters.
* This is based on a certain amount of experience. I've introduced a number of people to The Fourth Turning and, not surprisingly, the people I've introduced it to go looking for discussions related to the book and naturally find their way here. Invariably, the result is disappointment, because that stuff tends to be drowned out by the off-topic stuff. There's nothing wrong with off-topic stuff, but when that off-topic stuff becomes the point of the forum, then the ostensible goal of the forum (to promote generational theory) is lost.
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
To me, there's a difference between natural, evolving topic drift and a blatant thread hijacking, but the problem is that this is largely a subjective call, and my history with "judgment calls" as a moderator elsewhere suggests it would likely lead to charges of political bias on the part of the moderators, even if none were intended.
I agree. I also agree with Semo that a formal separation between topics directly relating to the theory and other off-topic subjcts may have to be created - though how I can't say.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
A lot of people have suggested that "topic drift" is natural, but that really depends both on the topic itself and the intended purpose of the discussion. Minds wander, and that leads to the possibility that topics will sprawl, but there's nothing necessarily natural about that process. After all, there's a degree of intentionality on the part of the individuals involved in the discussion.
Allow me to illustrate with an example:
Let's say that someone decides to start a discussion about the commonalities between the musical tastes of Civic/Hero generations, offering examples of music created by members of such generations in the 1930s, 1940s, 2000s, and 2010s. That topic could drift very easily. People might very well chime in with their opinions about music from those eras even though those opinions have nothing to do with the topic at hand. ("I've never liked big band music." "There's no good music anymore; why can't people make good music anymore?" "Lady Gaga sux." "Have you ever been swing dancing? I took classes in the late 1990s, and they were fun.")
There would be nothing natural (or, more importantly, inevitable) about that drift. Each of the posts that have nothing to do with the original topic (commonalities in the music created by different Civic/Hero generations) would have been contributed by people who read the post that set the topic and then chose to ignore it or chose not to read it and decided instead to blurt out whatever the heck they wanted to blurt out.
It's a matter of self-discipline. And if that self-discipline is lacking (which is what people are really saying when they say that topic drift is natural or inevitable), then active moderation is required or such discussions are stopped in their tracks (as they often are here).
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
I often see multiple conversations going on within a thread, independent of each other. The people carrying on within these simultaneous tracks don't seem to have that much trouble following whichever part of the thread that they're interested in. They're disciplined enough to pick out their particular conversation and keep it going.
I follow several forums, but I post here rather than there because of the variety of topics and the lack of heavy-handed moderation. I would hate to see a crew of "thread police" appointed and start killing conversations for being off topic.
If a thread topic is well chosen and interesting to enough participants, it will thrive on its own without needing to be propped up by outside forces.
JMHO.
I didn't say anything about discussions being propped up by outside forces.
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
I also agree that topic drift is pretty hard to avoid in a natural flow of conversation. I think the webmaster would have a difficult time enforcing this and would end up having to spend all day, every day, sending warning messages to most all of us. If a thread is longer than 5 or 6 posts, chances are there is going to some topic drift in it. Topic drift isn't always a negative either. There have been many times when the conversation drifts, bringing up a new idea that others want to explore further. Many times when this happens, someone will say, "We have gotten off topic here, but this sounds like something people are interested in discussing. Maybe we should start a new thread."
I also agree with Chas, that is a difference between topic drift and blatantly hijacking a thread. This type of thing most often occurs when a subject is being discussed (which has absolutely nothing to do with politics) and someone jumps in trying to turn it into a political debate. Perhaps to some people, everything is political but we do have a whole section for that. However, I feel this is usually done to deliberately bait people.
And this is the problem with looking at just one particular post. Especially if the one who did the baiting reports the person who was attacked in the first place and was merely trying to defend themselves.
As a member of the forum who has been around for a while, I've gotten to know the personalities of most of the regular posters pretty well. After a while, it's pretty obvious who are the people that are simply having a discussion and may have a difference of opinion on a certain topic and those who are trying to maliciously attack others for the fun of it.
Good comments. Dialogue and disagreements are fine. The ignore function is easy to use and useful to avoid any posters that are out of bounds.
There was an attempt at one time to create a fully moderated enclave within the forum. It looked like a reasonable option, though not one I ever intended to use. Appaently, no one else felt the need either. It died a quick death.
Just because it looks good in theory ...
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Apparently, the webmaster is about, trying to accomplish something or other:
Let me get this straight:
(From the Webmaster)
This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.
Original Post:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?p=414965
All the best,-Kiff (Child of Socrates, my ass) is definitely aware of Mr Le Chien Wally Poodle Pink Splice's previous comments (she spent her time excusing him remember?), as is the Self Proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom.
As a matter of fact, Odin probably runs a close second on the "Wishing Death to his Fellow Americans with whom he just happens to Disagee" scale, but that's another matter.
Fourth Turning Forums
(end Webmaster quote)
This:
...and this:
...and this:
...and this:
...seem to be OK, as is the so-called Child of Socrates' aid and comfort for this:
...and this:
...and this:
...and this:
...and this:
But let me point that out, and I get a 1 point infraction.
Really?
Color me unimpressed.
-Socrates was the guy who pointed the illogic and inconsistency of peoples' thinking. Point out her inconsistencies and illogic, and she runs away as if you were holding a crucifix and she was a vampire. Child of Socrate? Are you kidding?
-He'll probably take them with his martini.
Quit stalking me, Glick.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Better watch out, Rani. Now you are going and getting all off topic again. Remember that's one of the new rule "no nos".Maybe she is kidding. I just noticed this one:
Wasn't Underground Man the polar opposite of Socrates?!
Yeah, that's why I chose Thorazine instead of Ativan. Didn't want to Michael Jackson him
-Which is the point of so many of my posts when dealing with posters like Kiff. But they never seem to see it.
Anyway:
-You know, Odin, someday you're gonna' figure out that calling someone a name doesn't make it so.
For everyone else's benefit, let me translate what you're really saying: "Waaw! I want Glick to stop exposing my vicious lies!"
If you want to show some contrition, you could apologize for this:
...and this:
...and this:
...and this:
...and then you could apologize for this lie:
...Never happened- a LIE:
...and apologize for this lie:
...never happened- a LIE:
...and apologize for this lie:...Didn't happen- a LIE:
...and this nonsense:...uh:
...and most of all, this:...uh, Coughlin was [a] "Social Justice" Progressive who supported FDR, who was happy for his support. YOU LIED:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
Early in his career Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his early New Deal proposals, before later becoming a harsh critic of Roosevelt... He was an early supporter of Roosevelt's New Deal reforms and coined the phrase "Roosevelt or ruin", which became famous during the early days of the first FDR administration. Another phrase he became known for was "The New Deal is Christ's Deal."
Coughlin's support for Roosevelt and his New Deal faded later in 1934, when he founded the National Union for Social Justice (NUSJ), a nationalistic worker's rights organization which grew impatient with what it viewed as the President's unconstitutional and pseudo-capitalistic monetary policies...
Among the articles of the NUSJ, were work and income guarantees, nationalizing "necessary" industry, wealth redistribution through taxation of the wealthy, federal protection of worker's unions, and decreasing property rights in favor of the government controlling the country's assets for "public good."[10] Illustrative of his disdain for capitalism is his statement that, "We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry. Therefore, it is the business of government not only to legislate for a minimum annual wage and maximum working schedule to be observed by industry, but also to curtail individualism that, if necessary, factories shall be licensed and their output shall be limited."
BTW, Odin, which of the NUSJ's policies do YOU disagree with, eh?
-BTW, if you have me on ignore, how did you know that my post had anything to do with you, hmmm?
Rule ammendments
Some proposals for adjusting the Rules:
1)Removing the last guideline of staying on topic. There have been a lot of comments about the appreciation of the natural flow of a topic. From what has been expressed, the guideline for staying on topic is not high enough on the priority list to be part of the official guidelines.
2)Adding to the actions of spamming flooding a thread with same or similar posts.
3)Adding to the actions of spamming deleting and re-posting same or similar posts within a thread.
Another issue that has been occurring is the deleting and re-posting of posts. This disrupts the flow of conversations and can be very bothersome. Many people take this expectation for granted, but it should be clear for new users.
Please see below for what the changes would look like:
RULES:
1. Be respectful of other users and their opinions in all discussions.
2. No threats of violence (ie. threats of suicide, self-injury, or physical harm toward anyone). Discussions of suicide and self-harm are not permitted.
3. No use of explicit, racist, obscene or vulgar language, images or messages.
4. No posts that bait, attack, or abuse others. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated. All users engaged in attacking and baiting each other will receive at least a one point warning. If you engage after being baited, you will still receive a warning/point(s). If a user is always annoying please remember the "Ignore list" in your settings.
5. No advertising or links to advertising or "Spam" is permitted.
6. Do not post offline personal contact information (ie. your home address, phone numbers etc.) and do not ask for personal information from others. This is to protect your security and identity.
- Advertising or spam is defined as posting a link for the purpose of selling, soliciting or promoting something.
- Links promoting fundraising, advocacy, etc. are not permitted.
- Posts in languages other than English will most likely be considered spam.
- Sharing of links to helpful and relevant web sites and resources is allowed if they are not used for a promotional purpose.
- Any post identified as spam will be deleted and the user will be banned.
- Flooding a thread with multiple posts so as to make it inactive is spam and the user will be banned
- Deleting and re-posting the same or similar posts is considered a spamming activity.
7. Do not cross-post. Cross-posting refers to posting new duplicate threads or posts, or the linking to threads or posts already started by the member with the intention of gaining exposure.
ENFORCEMENT:
Monitors and administrators use a five point system on this forum. If a user receives a total of 5 active points they will be temporarily banned from the forum.
Minor indiscretions of the rules will receive 1 point. The more severely an act breaks or disregards forum rules, the more points will be allotted. Blatant abuses of the forum and its community will result in a permanent ban.
GUIDELINES:
1. Check for open topics. Before posting a new topic, please check to see if there is already a topic open on the subject.
2. Ignore bothersome members. If there is someone on the forum that bothers you, add them to your ignore list. Click on “settings” in the upper left-hand corner, then under setting column on the right click on “edit ignore list” and add their username.
3. Report posts that violate the rules. Do this by selecting the “Report Post” warning triangle in the lower right corner of the post.
4. Welcome new members. Help new users "learn the ropes" about how to find information and resources, save time, and how to get involved.
5. Use descriptive titles for new posts. Avoid "generic" post subjects like "Help" or "Question". You will receive a better response to your posts by making your title more descriptive about the content of your post.
6. Be respectful of moderators in both the forums and any private communications.
[ ]
Am I cross posting if a conversation on one thread brings up a topic that's on a past thread and I decide to link to that?
Born in 1981 and INFJ Gen Yer
I think that is a great question. The judgement on cross-posting has to do with the intent to gain exposure:If the link is relevant to the conversation, and is not for the purpose of becoming popular or increasing "exposure". Then I would probably determine that the link is a constructive part of the conversation.Cross-posting refers to posting new duplicate threads or posts, or the linking to threads or posts already started by the member with the intention of gaining exposure.
In short: No, what you describe is most likely not cross posting.
