Keeping Threads from going off the rails.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is not a personal thread, but it is about what happens at times in threads in which I have taken part, and has happeded to othermposters as well, even the tread author. On occasion threads often end up far from the destination that the poster hoped it would reach, sometimes I and others are at times partly to blame, as can happen to any author, or poster . Or to get it out of the way, I will happily admit to the, or any “lion share” for any blame, anyone wishes to assign to me, in an attempt to keep this thread from going off the rails.

I remember once in elementary school (or whatever name by which they are known today), I had a wonderful teacher who wanted to teach an object lesson, for lack of a better term. The lesson had to do with gossip, but she explained that it could be applied to many areas of life. She began with the person in the first desk, on her left side, and whispered something in his or her ear. She had previously written it on the blackboard making sure another teacher could conceal it, but covered the comment until the experiment ended at the first desk, on the front of the room on her right side. This way, each student had to tell every other student, what she told to the first student. The last student had to say it out loud, so when what she had written, once revealed,  would show how the narrative spoken to the first student, was all about. Some tried to say it just as she did, but she would attempt to keep anyone from deliberately changing the entire narrative. But very often, despite her doing all she could, in three different attempts, little to nothing matched what she had already written. As this applies to gossip, it was a valuable lesson, of how sometimes even though some think it is minor thing they are telling, comments about others,  or what others said, or implied, could often cause harm, sometimes great harm. 

As this site, and it’s charter, or it’s original charter, this is our common goal (or should be) to defend our Faith, and take a collective part in doing so. Some assist in this endeavor,  others at times try to frame it in a different light, because they feel somehow it harms them in some way. Others just drop in to criticize and create havoc, as much as they are allowed. We do our best in such cases, but often these “trolls”, stalk us and this website to do harm as long as they can. This will happen until the Moderators, (who do a great job) can step in and stop them, first by warning, and when this does not help, they are banned. But as brothers and sisters, bound by a common belief system by our Faith. We often try to support each other in such tasks. Some threads despite our efforts depending the Faith, on some topics get shot down immediately, and unallowed to flourish. But even if “allowed to flourish” there are still filled with posters who wish to disrupt the tread, or in some cases cause to be shut down. Recently I known friends who are tread authors, posters, are friends who are often misunderstood, and due to that misunderstanding are viewed in unfavorite ways.

A number of times, where other posters have attempted to post, via the overall thread, or just a point specific points of a single poster, and have come under attack, or many have changed the entire thread to something else, to address that single post. I always try to trust the process, and to all those in charge to “steady the Ark”, to coin an Old Testament phrase. Some have sought to explain their thought process, while others just wanted to keep the “Train” (to use my own metaphor) on the track of the unattended destination (again to use the same metaphor). This thread has two purposes, by they mine, or those who are friends who have expressed the same. 

1) How do we, collectively, or individually keep the thread on track, to discuss the wishes of the threads author?

2) what can I an others do, not to be the case of causing the derailment in the first place?

As I have no wish, nor would I ever reveal the private messages, or the names of those who have asked in private, I will address a recent exchange from a thread in which I was involved recently. In this thread, it was about the new Book of Mormon series of films, that are currently being produced. The first, I watched with glee, and as soon as I can get it on DVD, it will be a collective viewing for a Sunday dinner after Church. This because I can have all of my of my family here, all children, all grandchildren, and often some in-laws. I made it clear that I thought the first in the series was not only very well made, but I found enjoyable, or words to that effect. The first film had to do with (as I did not watch it all, so that I might be surprised with the entire film with my family once I obtained the DVD) Lehi, his vision, leaving Jerusalem, sending Nephi back to obtain the plates. Also being sent back convince Ishmael and his wife, and daughters to follow, so that his sons and all could have wives, to raise up a righteous people to God. Also, the travel to the sea, and maybe the building of a ship. 

During the thread, one poster wanted to know about “maybe bees”, and about the “submarines”, which were just a samller boat, that could simple, be sealed top and bottom, in the event it had to cut through and under the waves. Not a submarine, as submarines are built to spend months underwater, and most come up usually when necessary, or to take on food and supplies. In any event, I addressed only his post (at least at first) that these things had nothing had nothing to do with Lehi and his family and the film that was produced. Suddenly, I was facing many other posts, and many other posters, these ranged from things (hope I remember them all)...

1) Are you suggesting the Book of Ether, and the story surrounding the, Brother of Jared, should be exculded? 

2) The point that “we” are making is..., then I had to say, there is no “we”, unless you are speaking of you and I (to paraphrase), only to be given a list of all the posters had since chimed in, who were discussing other aspects of what they may have thought I had said, or implied. 

3) I made attemps to explain, I never suggested that the story, of the “Brother of Jared” (nor his family be excluded in any way, when The Church gets to that point, I did make a near fatal flaw, by saying that, if they get there. I only made that comment, because often attempts to take on such epic topics or books, many loose interest. Of course at that point I was told in another post, I was informed in a “link” (I think) that it was fully funded, something I could not possibly know beforehand.

4) After a number of other posts, I finally made a plea, that we get back on track, or the term I used was “Interstate”, and return to discussing the wonderful first film, and the films to come. 

Please know, this post is not me complaining, but asking the sincere question, how do we avoid the derailing of threads in the future? How do we not be the cause of early closing of threads, that have great potential? In short, how can we become better stewards of the trust we are given here? 

Again, before this goes of track, to any who read this far, I will go ahead and admit to any “lion share” of any blame others which to assign to me. As for any misquotes, or for any who feel I misrepresented anything said, I did not mention any name, but if you may feel slighted in any way, I will take responsibility now, and beg forgiveness now. This way (I hope) only the purpose of the thread can fully be addressed. I know, I can be too blunt, or tell the truth when it is viewed as harmful to others. As a result, I have lost long time friends, here and elsewhere. Not long ago, I had a close family member tell me, “your poems are just too personal and too truthful”. I told him, “well that is just who I am”. He looks me in the eye, and says, “then you are a fool”! So, So, I pray this does not seem foolish? 

 

 

 

[Coop]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I've never seen a discussion forum succeed as you suggest.  And the reason they don't is because no one is in charge.  Sure we have the police (Mods) but they are reactive.  We need a solution that works in real time.  There is term in economics called the tragedy of the commons.  This is where a group of people share a resource and unless they are bound to each other in some meaningful way (think Zion) some one in the group will use more than their fair share.  This is what is happening here.

The good news is there is a solution to keeping discussions on topic but I've only been able to affect this solution in face to face settings.  I have no idea how it would work here.

All the best,

Bob

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

13 hours ago, Coop said:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I've never seen a discussion forum succeed as you suggest.  And the reason they don't is because no one is in charge.  Sure we have the police (Mods) but they are reactive.  We need a solution that works in real time.  There is term in economics called the tragedy of the commons.  This is where a group of people share a resource and unless they are bound to each other in some meaningful way (think Zion) some one in the group will use more than their fair share.  This is what is happening here.

The good news is there is a solution to keeping discussions on topic but I've only been able to affect this solution in face to face settings.  I have no idea how it would work here.

All the best,

Bob

You are not the “bearer of bad news”, as I have asked for, ard was seeking opinions from all who wish to post. The only thing I did not want is for this thread is to result in just finger pointing  at me at me alone, as I have already done so, and took even more of that responsibility than others. Not only to avoid others doing so, but because I freely admit my sins and errors. This was, as I hoped, we could avoid the derailing of this thread as well.  As for as “face to  face”, meetings, we have posters that  span the globe. Even so, there are yearly meetings to discuss Gospel topics, and Apologetics where many here do meet “face to face”, and know each other personally. Even having never been able to attend, I have also met members who post here, some who still do so on occasion, and some who do not post any longer.Beyond that, we must try to work within the framework that we have, as there is no other way to do so, so that “maybe” more will either understand the message of this thread, despite my pitiful effort to explain the message, or find a way to understand it.

Anyway, thank you for your response, most of my treads are ignored, or go nowhere. This because I am one of the least favorite posters here, as many have been here forever, and others are are true scholars of the Gospel, or Professors at BYU. Because of this, they command much greater respect, and are superior writers , and are able to articulate their views much better than I am able to do. My talents to teach and write, have much more to do with the “Technical”, than talents with both the “Gospel, topics and English Literature”. So many find it hard to get through a single paragraph, than a number of attempted paragraphs. So again, thank you for your response 

Also I wish you, “all the best”, because you were both kind and honest, and quite possibly the only response I may receive. I hope others will, but sometimes when any post is done on a Friday, few even see it, as numbers are very low on weekends. This because most people have busy, and much bigger lives to attend too, I however due to disability, I have far too much time on my hands. So, God Bless You. 

[Rain]

I'm ok with some threads going off topic. It's the way normal conversation goes and sometimes there is a lot of info or light that can come into it by going in other directions. So I don't think that going off topic in and of itself is a problem.  

The problems I see with a thread going off topic are:

1. When the OP wants to keep it on topic (specific things the OP wants to talk or learn about etc.) Some of these things are pretty clear and the threads seem to stay on topic fairly well - like when I posted asking about the best bible translation to use. Other things are going to be much harder to keep on topic.

If the OP wants to keep it on topic then I think that the OP should clearly state what the topic is and have a real focus. If the OP post goes every which way the thread will not stay in focus. The responsibility lays on the OP here to start with and if things go off track then the OP needs to quickly bring it back if they want it to stay on topic.

2. Some posters seem to have a one track focus. If this is you (general you) then it is important to really look at where the OP is going and ask yourself "does the topic about money in the BoM really have anything to do with my pet topic of sealing families?" Yes, there can  be some similarities seen, but maybe it would be best to use another example.

Of course this means that each of us needs to look clearly at ourselves and at what we post to be able to do this. This is the responsibility of the responder.

3. Sometimes the topic has run it's course. It may be wise for the OP to say they would like to put the topic on hold till new info comes around.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Rain

[The Nehor]

Thread rules are a little odd. In a group conversation the person who spoke first does not get a veto over people taking it in another direction and most of the time in friendly conversation they would not want it if it was offered. There are reasons to give threads a little power here but some just want too much control. Generally that means they are not really wanting to discuss, they are wanting to control the results of the discussion. Then again some (*cough* me) sometimes dance off in very weird directions that are just annoying.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

 

2. Some posters seem to have a one track focus. If this is you (general you) then it is important to really look at where the OP is going and ask yourself "does the topic about money in the BoM really have anything to do with my pet topic of sealing families?" Yes, there can  e some similarities seen, but maybe it would be best to use another example.

Of course this means that each of us needs to look clearly at ourselves and at what we post to be able to do this. This is the responsibility of the responder.

 

6 hours ago, Rain said:

 

I don’t post as many threads, in fact few compared to many, not even close. I wrote this post to discuss how threads or OP’s can and are often derailed. I did this so it had only that as a topic, or a topic that did not need expanding, nuances, or other direction. I also took great efforts to accept any blame, any wanted to assign, by pleading guilty to any charge up front, more than once, and in more ways than one. So I made every effort to be very, very specific, so that I did not become the topic, or be mentioned in the thread. I guess that is now moot, with this paragraph, I reduced it so each could rely on it, because it was meant to Also, if I am in error, as to your comment, then to keep it from repeating, and run the risk of derailing this thread, I will now apologize as before, so that anyournext reply, and try and keep others who might chime in. 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Thread rules are a little odd. In a group conversation the person who spoke first does not get a veto over people taking it in another direction 

We used to.  Contributors used to be able to lock our own threads if they got too derailed.  Been a while.

[Rain]

On 9/27/2019 at 4:14 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

...

1) How do we, collectively, or individually keep the thread on track, to discuss the wishes of the threads author?

2) what can I an others do, not to be the case of causing the derailment in the first place?

...

 

 

14 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

 

I don’t post as many threads, in fact few compared to many, not even close. I wrote this post to discuss how threads or OP’s can and are often derailed. I did this so it had only that as a topic, or a topic that did not need expanding, nuances, or other direction. I also took great efforts to accept any blame, any wanted to assign, by pleading guilty to any charge up front, more than once, and in more ways than one. So I made every effort to be very, very specific, so that I did not become the topic, or be mentioned in the thread. I guess that is now moot, with this paragraph, I reduced it so each could rely on it, because it was meant to Also, if I am in error, as to your comment, then to keep it from repeating, and run the risk of derailing this thread, I will now apologize as before, so that anyournext reply, and try and keep others who might chime in. 

Not a single part of my post was about your behavior. I specifically used "general you" to show this was not about you, Papa, but about anyone on this board who was doing what I was talking about. The entire post was answering the 2 questions you posed that I have quoted above.

[Rain]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Thread rules are a little odd. In a group conversation the person who spoke first does not get a veto over people taking it in another direction and most of the time in friendly conversation they would not want it if it was offered. There are reasons to give threads a little power here but some just want too much control. Generally that means they are not really wanting to discuss, they are wanting to control the results of the discussion. Then again some (*cough* me) sometimes dance off in very weird directions that are just annoying.

I don't think we have to have rules by any means, but I think there is a big difference in threads that can be carried on in a conversational way and where the OP is creating a thread to really understand a specific topic. In these cases it could be considered rude to go off topic and I don't have a problem with people reining them in.

It's kind of like having a conversation with your friend about spiders and then a new friend comes along and intentionally interrupts and wants you to make the conversation about fridges. If the friend doesn't want to talk about spiders then he should wait for the first 2 to be done/start a new thread.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Rain

[Amulek]

On 9/27/2019 at 6:14 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

1) How do we, collectively, or individually keep the thread on track, to discuss the wishes of the threads author?

First step: Don't feed the trolls. This is, admittedly, much more easily said than done sometimes. 

I've been participating in threads before when somebody comes crashing in with some incendiary attack completely unrelated to anything that was being discussed. It's hard to just let those things go unanswered, and I think that's where a lot of derailment tends to happen.

I believe the mods used to allow something like curated discussions at one point - where only experts and serious posters were allowed to participate. It's been a while, so I don't really recall all the details of how those worked. But that would pretty much be the only way to keep a thread legitimately on topic.

My personal observation is that your average thread has an on-topic half-life of about 3-4 pages. So, if I see a thread that's gone over 5-7 pages, I just assume whatever people are still talking about is largely unrelated to whatever it was that got things going in the first place. 

 

Quote

2) what can I an others do, not to be the case of causing the derailment in the first place?

If you notice yourself going off-topic with just one individual, maybe just bow out of the discussion and take it to PMs. That's pretty much all any individual can do. 

 

 

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

Not a single part of my post was about your behavior. I specifically used "general you" to show this was not about you, Papa, but about anyone on this board who was doing what I was talking about. The entire post was answering the 2 questions you posed that I have quoted above.

I really enjoyed your answer, by the way, totally on topic and definitely made me think. I’ve been the one to derail threads sometimes, even if all it was just with a snarky comment. I think that’s the key to OPs question, each poster needs to think “am I adding appropriately to this discussion?” If not, maybe you (general you) need to re-evaluate your comment. 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I believe the mods used to allow something like curated discussions at one point - where only experts and serious posters were allowed to participate. It's been a while, so I don't really recall all the details of how those worked. But that would pretty much be the only way to keep a thread legitimately on topic.

It was a separate forum where one had to be approved as a "contributor" and then you could post on any thread it, but if abused privilege would be pulled.

It died from disuse though there were some good threads in it, but it worked very well for keeping threads focused iirc.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We used to.  Contributors used to be able to lock our own threads if they got too derailed.  Been a while.

I miss those days. 

[Scott Lloyd]

This is all well and good, but nothing in the transcript of Trump’s phone conversation with the Ukraine president amounts to an impeachable offense. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

It was a separate forum where one had to be approved as a "contributor" and then you could post on any thread it, but if abused privilege would be pulled.

It died from disuse though there were some good threads in it, but it worked very well for keeping threads focused iirc.

That it died from disuse says a lot. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We used to.  Contributors used to be able to lock our own threads if they got too derailed.  Been a while.

It might work, but do we do when the comment of someone else takes itt down another road, even though that was not intended?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is all well and good, but nothing in the transcript of Trump’s phone conversation with the Ukraine president amounts to an impeachable offense. 

Not sure how that came to be, but discussing politics in any thread, will cause “sudden death”. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

10 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I really enjoyed your answer, by the way, totally on topic and definitely made me think. I’ve been the one to derail threads sometimes, even if all it was just with a snarky comment. I think that’s the key to OPs question, each poster needs to think “am I adding appropriately to this discussion?” If not, maybe you (general you) need to re-evaluate your comment. 

We all have and will do it, either by design or by accident. We will usually continue to do so by accident, but we can all avoid doing so by design. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Not a single part of my post was about your behavior. I specifically used "general you" to show this was not about you, Papa, but about anyone on this board who was doing what I was talking about. The entire post was answering the 2 questions you posed that I have quoted above.

Then I beg your forgiveness, for misunderstanding. I do that offen, as my flaws are many, and such is the human condition. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Not sure how that came to be, but discussing politics in any thread, will cause “sudden death”. 

My post was tongue-in-cheek playfulness alluding to the thread topic. Sorry if that didn’t come across. 
 

I didn’t, nor do I, intend to discuss politics on this thread. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My post was tongue-in-cheek playfulness alluding to the thread topic. Sorry if that didn’t come across. 
 

I didn’t, nor do I, intend to discuss politics on this thread. 

Thanks, I did not get it the first time. Makes sense now of course, some in the past would turn a thread about “how nice flowers are”, into a political one, so it would be shut down. One person comes to mind, even as I type this. If he felt like things weren’t going his way, he would use it as a tool to end, not only his threads, but all others. He was by no means a “troll”, just aggravated easily, a condition we all suffer from at times. 🙄 

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We used to.  Contributors used to be able to lock our own threads if they got too derailed.  Been a while.

No, I meant in an equivalent verbal person to person conversation. If you start a conversation and it runs somewhere else the person who started it does not get a veto on the conversation going that way.

[mnn727]

Threads take on a life of their own - I thank God (or the mods) that the original poster is no longer able to close their threads.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Threads take on a life of their own - I thank God (or the mods) that the original poster is no longer able to close their threads.

I don’t recall too many people abusing the privilege. And that was not the reason the privilege was removed according to my understanding. It was because a board upgrade did not have that technical capability. 
 

And if threads “take on a life of their own,” all the more reason to have it, so that thread originators can police their own threads. 
 

In any case, I’ve seen moderators honor the requests of thread originators that threads be closed. Maybe they don’t do it anymore. 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Scott Lloyd