I just happen to stumble over this thread again:
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 65&start=0 'This is Haengma' were contrubuters are requested to evaluate a book.


It is one of many in the last time which seems to 'explode' IMO and digresses quick & strongly by some early objections. The fun of browsing, reading through or contributing to Li19x19 is thereby heavily diminuished for me.



Open a new thread for off-topic contents.


Then do not post on this issue.

As suggested by others already, I request moderators herewith to force off-topic contributions quick and early into their respective Topic, usually 'Off Topic - All non-Go discussions should go here.' would apply.
As moderators are busy people too, who cannot read and evaluate every contribution on its OT-ness,
Eisenhower's 80/20 Method in mind, prejudiced shifting on perhaps 0.1 % of contributions might get rid of 99.9% of annoying clutter.

(not sure whether I opened this thread now as new thread or Reply. Sorry in advance if a moderator has to shift now my entry to OT)

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

Policing exactly when a thread goes off topic is virtually impossible and would inhibit helpful contributions.

Given your personal involvement, it sounds as if you'd like off-topic posts you don't like moved to OT.

Why didn't you just send a message to the mods?

Harry Stevens (who?) authored the Participate conferencing software in the 1980s. One of its excellent features is that it gives moderator power to users over threads that they start. IMX, both as user and what was called Lead Helper for such software, that worked quite well.

How about allowing those who start threads to move notes that they deem off topic to Off Topic? The original note would contain a link to the moved material. The author of the note would, OC, be the moderator for the new thread that was created by the move.

That would allow the starter of the thread to decide whether to allow digressions or not. Specific decisions might not suit everybody, including those whose notes are moved. However, those whose notes were moved would have their own topics in which to continue the debate.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I like Bill's suggestion about giving the thread starters the possibility to move posts to Off-Topic.

In the Haengma-review-thread, even after editing by moderators, the thread contains a lot of posts which should not be there, imo.

Is the suggestion technically possible??

_________________
Stay out of my territory! (W. White, aka Heisenberg)

Tommie, that you cite me here again while the context is floating elsewhere in other threads does not mean that I copy what I wrote in the other threads, although something would also fit here and more than what you cite. IOW, if you want on-topic discussion that much, then not citing rather arbitrarily selected messages is also a good idea.

And no, I do not like your proposal because it gives users some power of censorship.

This is a bad idea. Part of being on an online forum is the freedom to post about whatever you really want. It doesn't really have to be "on-topic" as much as it is just going with the flow of where the discussion is going towards. It's not like you'd tell someone in real life to "stick to the topic!". This is a CASUAL forum, keep it that way. Lastly, If someone or something offends you, you should report the person(s)/ thread.

I don't really understand why it's a big deal. Couldn't you just ignore the irrelevant posts anyways? It's pretty easy when people start quoting each other to figure out who is not speaking about the things YOU are interested in.

_________________
I know nothing.

The author of an entry knows whether s/he is off-topic to the initial subject-matter of the thread.
It IS thus possible for her/him to mark his/her own topic 'Off-topic'.


It unclear what you might want to express.
Perhaps you refer to my oversight (error) when hitting the 'SUBMIT'-button to early (still being in the thread.
I have started an OT-thread - q.e.d.


I am not sure about the single most important reason.
Perhaps because I find a fundamental discussion about this forum's policy more useful than
individual purging requests.
Keeping threads on-topic by each contributer self appears to be more efficient than
having to inform moderators, which then have to take an action - correction - (too often) (too) many actions.
I appeal thus to entry posters to save moderators a lot of work.


This seems to be THE solution
every one is allowed to have his/her say
and the thread initiaor decides to listen or not.


Censorship is a perjorative word for the suggested moderation.

Moderation means that you can write (almost) EVERTHING WHAT you want,
however NOT WHERE you want.

Censorship the contrary would either be an attempt to alter your message and/or suppress it - this is clearly not the case.

Even I, who suggested this, sometimes like your contributions.
However, I feel as deeply disturbed as being in a movie theater or concert hall and YOUR phone (or mine) rings,
because you want to tell all about rule discrepancies of 22 years ago (while the romantic scenes starts),
dicuss a new ko rule imponderability which you investigated in your free time (while LangLang plays pianissimo) or
imposing use of language to others.

This disturbs the conversation of many, many threads.

It is thus quantitatively much communication,
yet content-wise lower quality communication
when more often than not, threads appear highjacked
by early entries digressing totally from the topic
at best having a distant relation to something in the topic
(e.g. its 'form', e.g. the word 'excellent', take it or leave it, that was the given choice - chose yourself,
however read the book first. You have somewhere a website with book recensions, include the 'Haengma' book there - or not.
However, please RESPECT s.o. else's thread.)


Incorrect, as this is a moderated forum about Go as the subject-matter.


Well, that's the point of THIS very thread. IMO, it has to stay a bit more ON-TOPIC.
A very, very small percentage of users disturbs my pleasant reading of an otherwise interesting subject.
This online forum IS part of real life AND I am telling other about my wish 'Please stay on-topic'
(or talk to s.o. else, in another thread).
Taking up your comparision with 'real life', e.g. on a party,
I would politely move away with a sweet lie 'that I have to greet s.o. else, talk to you later' or so
and could avoid shouting out 'boooring' or 'nonsense' or 'crazy, do you have a life?' or going through pains of faking interest.


It would take first a deep personal relationship before I could feel offended. This is not the case here.
It is more like a request for dimming the voices so that everyone can hear something sensible.


Until now, I only know the IGNORE button. I have used it (as many others) for an annoying poster called inigo-weiqi,
who was always talking nonsense, despite denying trolling.

While Robert denies trolling too, he is far from comparable with inigo-weiqi.
Robert often writes something useful, just that I am not interested in it
and especially not in a forum started by s.o. else for a DIFFERENT purpose.

It would be too tough a method, to ignore ALL of what Robert writes.
I just want (all of us) to write at an appropriate place.
If you know a tool (beside Bill Spight's suggestion) already present on Lifein19x19, then please inform me.

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

Simply put, because there is always a chance the OP will think my contributions are off topic (or use that as an excuse to "moderate," as you euphemistically put it, my post), I will not bother contributing. And even if I did, my posts would likely be devoid of any anecdotes or humor.

I disagree with your definitions / usage of these words and your drawn implications but currently do not want to spend time on them.



The same I could say about you but the implication I draw is different: Freedom of speech for everybody (incl. you) subject only to laws and forum rules.



Be a model for others. If it is convincing, others will follow you voluntarily.

Robert, we agree here by 100 % on our common concern (concern = Deutsch 'Anliegen':

Freedom of speech for everybody (incl. you) subject only to laws and forum rules.
and the implication I draw is different:

Robert, that is interesting, because our concern ('Anliegen') seems the same (Freedom of speech for everybody),
we should be able to find common grounds, despite that our positions still differ:
you want to allow everyone to utter everything everywhere,
while I prefer that the one starting the conversation may focus on-topic and allow others to continue their OT-talk elsewhere.


That is far from enough, as some are pushing boundaries.
Therefore I lobby for better rules. I assume that you like rules.

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

Freedom of speech includes the right of the writer to write where he wants. You want to eliminate that right.

I think any higher levels of post-moving would be a terrible idea. Currently the friendly neighbourhood mods will do it in extreme circumstances, and I think it should stay that way. Most off-topic contributions are interesting to somebody, and if you look at a couple of recently split threads you can see that various things suddenly lack context. To be honest, I would have preferred all the split threads to remain whole.

Allowing OPs to split threads would let some start vigilante actions (or at least lead to an annoying proliferation of contextless threads) and asking mods to be more proactive about it is also putting more pressure on our precious volunteers.

The point, as I see it, isn't that (OP post + separate contextless thread) is better than (Single derailed thread), it's that by (lightly) punishing the derailers and horse-floggers we might encourage them to think carefully about how to be productive and constructive when they post, and deter them from out-and-out unpleasant tangents.

I can speak from experience here. You are right that "vigilante" actions could be taken by the OPs. The Participate software gives even greater moderator power to users who start their own threads than I am suggesting. As I recall, the moderator of a political thread had a subthread that he named Garbage, to which he would move notes that he thought belonged there. While such things caused some arguments and grumbling, they were accepted because everybody could start their own threads. Nobody's freedom of expression was squelched. It seems reasonable to me to let people who start a discussion keep it on track. It is not like they are preventing others from having their say.

Speaking of vigilante actions, I am unhappy that two people here whom I consider my friends are at outs and that one is harassing the other. I think that that is worse than any vigilantism implied by allowing OPS to move notes in their threads to Off Topic. But people do not always get along. <shrug>

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The way I see it: The more unfriendly a forum gets, the fewer participants.
So which is the most friendly?

Thread creators own their threads and can moderate them however they see fit
or
People can post more or less off topic posts mostly anywhere and will only be moderated according to known rules of the forum?

Both ways are friendly in some ways and unfriendly in other, but the latter is easier to predict, i.e. "Will this post be moderated or not?"

There is a risk of losing members if this is implemented. Especially if the original request is followed, to increase moderation without adding some extra friendliness somewhere else.

/Mats

_________________
mohsart - games & books
http://spel.mohsart.se/

Your interpretation of Freedom of speech is perhaps your ideal,
yet it is obviously wrong when we compare it to reality.

We could collect numerous examples where it is even forbidden to say
'everything what we want' 'everywhere we want' (= in any location).

Having clarified that, we still must evaluate the pros (friendliness was mentioned) and cons (annoyance by derailed threads).
Hence, Robert, we are still discussing the rules which we (including you and me) prefer for this forum.

I do not like to see so many threads derailed.
If I was filtering some 'derailer' I would still see so many posts replying to the derailer.

Hence, I like the software mentioned by Bill Spight.
It would not be censorship, but moderation in my interpretation.
The right of the owner/starter of a thread to undisturbed discussion weighs very much.
We kick out spam as well.

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

By citing me while restricting the context, you create a wrong impression of what I have said. I have also said: "Freedom of speech for everybody (incl. you) subject only to laws and forum rules."



Somebody wishing to discuss undisturbed should discuss privately. Somebody discussing publicly (in a forum) agrees to the (forum) public joining discussion.

Well that's silly. It's in the context of this thread, and it is almost the entire content of your post #12. Indeed, even taken in context, by excluding the words "in an online forum" your statement actively invites misinterpretation.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IMO, it would also reduce volume in our forum.
Now we have many threads e.g. with topics N, M, O, P, Q, R etc. which might derail into one of the following three:

• it is about some theoretical aspects of ko, you have no clue, and I know ko better
  
• some rules question and why the others are wrong
  
• petty arguments about semantics and I will teach you mother-tongue speakers !

Some people interested in the original, main topic of the thread, might want to get it back on track
by arguing against the newly created meta-level (e.g. in the third example comprising semantics).
However, with derailing contributors of the category 'I am not a troll and I will prove you all why',
this attempt is utterly in vain and as counter-productive as opening extensions in SPAM-mail, wanting to 'un-subscribe'.

The main advantage (for ALL/majority minus OT contributor) of a moderated OT-contribution thread-shift would be, that this new topic would get its
proper, appropriate attention (like a separated bacteria without its host-cell, it could die a fast death by underfeeding, though).
Especially the OT-thread starter is always allowed to have his/her last word and no one would care. (q.e.d. here ? )
Let's see and wait for a paradox?)

All the wasted entries just reacting to OT entries (OT in a Main thread), requesting to stop posting OT,
could then be saved (volume, time , annoyance), as it is ok to be OT in the new OT-thread.

Alles klar ?

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

Just a few thoughts on the matter.

I really only read a couple of the forums here.

To be precise, I read any threads that interest me, in Off Topic, and 'mark all read' on the rest, and then I read Malkovich. If work is particularly mind numbing, I'll poke around the rest of the forum with a long stick, and try to ignore all the arguments and rules lawyering I encounter.

I don't particularly like the thought of moderators 'splitting' every time a thread goes off topic. It cools contribution to a thread. Someone may feel they have a valid point, and, if others agree, then it's on topic, but if a moderator disagrees, it could well become a seperate thread, and spam up.. Off topic. Which is all I really cared to read in the first place.

If I have to sort out every fight and argument that starts on the forum, because it's suddenly in off topic, I'll likely stop even reading that much, since that's why I pretty much don't read the rest of the forum anyway.

You're going to have people starting arguments. You're on a forum. There's an ignore button, if you don't like what TrollaX is saying, ignore him, and continue talking on topic.

Stop feeding the trolls, stop even acknowledging their contribution to the thread, and guess what? It won't be a problem. Mods aren't needed to settle every semantics argument, or even split up threads every time it happens. If people want to hang out and debate what the definition of Is is, senator, LET THEM. Just don't make them do it in off topic, so I can keep reading the one place on the forum that is largely BS free.

Thanks.

CSam