Allowing expansion of conversations within threads

[Challis]

Hello all, I hope you are well, whenever you are.
I have seen this a few times on the forums, to keep discussion related to the thread. This is important on large threads that many respond to, to remove tangents from frequenting.
However in smaller posts (which are more frequent), I think we dhould allow for expansion.
1) to continue engagement
2)to give others chance to engage
3)to remove dissuasion. As a newbie I have a lot of questions I don't ask because I don't want to read that "keep to thread" message.

4)lastly and most importantly, to accrue knowledge. The more people ask the more is discussed and potentially answered. Then there is more info for a passerby to read. Through critical analysis and group discussion I believe we can do more in general.

Again this is not solely my idea. Apologies if this has been posted before.

Let me know what you think.

Blessings,
Challis

 

[KjEno186]

1) Start a new thread about the topic of interest which does not conform to the current topic (or use an existing thread if that topic has been discussed in the past).
2) Who are these 'others'?
3) @SkullTraill instituted the rule to "keep to thread" (stay on topic) because certain posters have a propensity to always discuss their favorite ideas and anecdotes no matter what the topic of the thread is that they may be posting in. Certain posters have a tendency to react to topical tangents in a way that completely usurps the intended topic of the original poster. Moderators would rather not have to say "keep to thread," so we encourage all members of the forum to review the rules for discussions and appreciate the reasons why they exist.

Post automatically merged: Nov 21, 2023

This is important on large threads that many respond to

Also, no one can predict the popularity of any post ahead of time.

 

[SkullTraill]

1) Start a new thread about the topic of interest which does not conform to the current topic (or use an existing thread if that topic has been discussed in the past).
2) Who are these 'others'?
3) @SkullTraill instituted the rule to "keep to thread" (stay on topic) because certain posters have a propensity to always discuss their favorite ideas and anecdotes no matter what the topic of the thread is that they may be posting in. Certain posters have a tendency to react to topical tangents in a way that completely usurps the intended topic of the original poster. Moderators would rather not have to say "keep to thread," so we encourage all members of the forum to review the rules for discussions and appreciate the reasons why they exist.

Post automatically merged: Nov 21, 2023

Also, no one can predict the popularity of any post ahead of time.

This is simply all that needs to be said, thank you. The day I start charging $5 to open a thread I'll reconsider this suggestion.

 

[Challis]

Yeah it answered my query. Thanks for the info

 

[Xenophon]

Hello all, I hope you are well, whenever you are.
I have seen this a few times on the forums, to keep discussion related to the thread. This is important on large threads that many respond to, to remove tangents from frequenting.
However in smaller posts (which are more frequent), I think we dhould allow for expansion.
1) to continue engagement
2)to give others chance to engage
3)to remove dissuasion. As a newbie I have a lot of questions I don't ask because I don't want to read that "keep to thread" message.

4)lastly and most importantly, to accrue knowledge. The more people ask the more is discussed and potentially answered. Then there is more info for a passerby to read. Through critical analysis and group discussion I believe we can do more in general.

Again this is not solely my idea. Apologies if this has been posted before.

Let me know what you think.

Blessings,
Challis

Ahhh, for the storied past. In the early days of the net, internecine warfare raged mongst the city states of Austin, Silicone Valley, and Seattle. In these times, young keyboard caballeros strutted like peacocks through the chat rooms. Did any dare offer the affront, "keep to the thread," the expected response was, "Bugger off, ponce!" while reaching for one's keen steel. (OK, computer mouse. Whichever.)

As a conversational canon, relevance is only intermittently...well, relevant.

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

Are we referring to or forgetting the days of Usenet or Google groups before the rise of facebooks draconic heads?

 

[Xenophon]

Is it just me? When I saw "expand conversation," I flashed onto a 60's-esque movie scent. Dennis Hopper and a young Jack Nicholson, say. Looking out over the Texas Plains from the Balcones Excarpment at sunset. And, as he puffs the rolled smoke Hopper has just given him, Jack gets this beatific look on his face and waving his arms at the vanishing sun cries out, "That is JUST-EXACTLY-IT! We have got to EXPAND CONVERSATION. Expand it past...past...past EVERYTHING, man!" (cut to Harleys tooling down Highway 66 and "Born To Be Wild" blaring away.)

 

[Roma]

Perhaps threads that wander without being dominated by "favorite ideas" might be useful.

Usually I think my comment upon a comment is not worth a new thread. So I move on

It seems to me that a straight line might get to the goal - if it is accurately directed.

Otherwise a zigzag is much more likely to find the goal - eventually