Clearing up any confusion

[BG_Josh]

If you make an off topic post, it should be deleted.  Don't make off topic posts.

Hint: If anyone has any sort of issue with anything on the boards they would bring it up here on this board.  In fact, almost by defenition no one has a problem unless they bring it here.

 

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

If I understand you, this post (however "off-topic" it might be in other threads) is legitimate:

almost by defenition no one has a problem unless they bring it here.

...

though I'm sure if its not sufficiently on-topic, it will be deleted. rofl (man, I shouldn't post this sleepy)

[awaken_D_M_golem]

  ... You mean like when they clarified which one was Josh ??

[BG_Josh]

  ... You mean like when they clarified which one was Josh ??

I'm behind baldy.

[BG_Meg]

I'd like to challenge this rule.

I've always been ok with off topic. Conversations grow and evolve. It's more organic to let them meander the to strictly adhere to a "stay on topic" policy.

But I can see how it can get annoying for someone trying to really get a lot from a topic.

Could we adjust? The op should get to decide if topics should be split off or not. And by op I mean the person currently leading the conversation, so if a thread is resurrected, etc. but if a whole side conversation starts going (guilty  ) and the OP feels it's getting out of hand, they could request the off topic stuff to get moved.

Does that work?

[Sinfire Titan]

I'd like to challenge this rule.

I've always been ok with off topic. Conversations grow and evolve. It's more organic to let them meander the to strictly adhere to a "stay on topic" policy.

But I can see how it can get annoying for someone trying to really get a lot from a topic.

Could we adjust? The op should get to decide if topics should be split off or not. And by op I mean the person currently leading the conversation, so if a thread is resurrected, etc. but if a whole side conversation starts going (guilty  ) and the OP feels it's getting out of hand, they could request the off topic stuff to get moved.

Does that work?

Seconding.

[Agita]

I'd like to challenge this rule.

I've always been ok with off topic. Conversations grow and evolve. It's more organic to let them meander the to strictly adhere to a "stay on topic" policy.

But I can see how it can get annoying for someone trying to really get a lot from a topic.

Could we adjust? The op should get to decide if topics should be split off or not. And by op I mean the person currently leading the conversation, so if a thread is resurrected, etc. but if a whole side conversation starts going (guilty  ) and the OP feels it's getting out of hand, they could request the off topic stuff to get moved.

Does that work?

Seconding.

Thirding; this is also pretty much how it's always been done (minus the OP deciding whether a topic should be split off, which is a neat idea).

[EjoThims]

I'd like to challenge this rule.

I've always been ok with off topic. Conversations grow and evolve. It's more organic to let them meander the to strictly adhere to a "stay on topic" policy.

But I can see how it can get annoying for someone trying to really get a lot from a topic.

Could we adjust? The op should get to decide if topics should be split off or not. And by op I mean the person currently leading the conversation, so if a thread is resurrected, etc. but if a whole side conversation starts going (guilty  ) and the OP feels it's getting out of hand, they could request the off topic stuff to get moved.

Does that work?

3.5thed

Cause I didn't wanna 4thed it.

[RobbyPants]

I'd like to challenge this rule.

I've always been ok with off topic. Conversations grow and evolve. It's more organic to let them meander the to strictly adhere to a "stay on topic" policy.

But I can see how it can get annoying for someone trying to really get a lot from a topic.

Could we adjust? The op should get to decide if topics should be split off or not. And by op I mean the person currently leading the conversation, so if a thread is resurrected, etc. but if a whole side conversation starts going (guilty  ) and the OP feels it's getting out of hand, they could request the off topic stuff to get moved.

Does that work?

3.5thed

Cause I didn't wanna 4thed it.

I'll skipped to fifthed, then. 

[BG_Josh]

There is a huge difference between:

-posting something slightly off topic - "speaking of gobots I just watchedthe movie"
-posting something off topic - "transformers are better"
-the discussion evolving - "evil gobots are the best"
and
-posting to disrupt the thread - "I am the meta gobot master and you all meta suck"

Slightly Off topic And evolution are fine.  Don't do the other two.

It makes it impossible to have a discussion when someone is yelling in your face. 

I am in favor of any system where non contributors cant drown out the people who are trying to do something and have fun with it.

[veekie]

They can't really ever drown out discussion because we can just split off whatever is off about it into a new discussion, unless they hog both threads.

[RobbyPants]

They can't really ever drown out discussion because we can just split off whatever is off about it into a new discussion, unless they hog both threads.

If we split it and they continue posting in the wrong thread, I'd say point them to it and move their post. If they keep doing it, then they get in trouble. That makes sense to me, at least.

[EjoThims]

They can't really ever drown out discussion because we can just split off whatever is off about it into a new discussion, unless they hog both threads.

If we split it and they continue posting in the wrong thread, I'd say point them to it and move their post. If they keep doing it, then they get in trouble. That makes sense to me, at least.

+1

[BG_Josh]

They can't really ever drown out discussion because we can just split off whatever is off about it into a new discussion, unless they hog both threads.

In every case the poster would whine "this is on topic" or would do a sentence of two on topic.

So the rule needs to be something along the lines of:
-at least 3/4 on topic (in reality it should be 90-95% on topic)
-not simply repeating something (harping is agains the rules in any case)
-contains no material aimed at undermining the topic (any amount of this topic is stupid or you should do a DnD contest needs its own thread)

[ariasderros]

I'll skipped to fifthed, then. 

Sixth

+1

+2

In every case the poster would whine "this is on topic" or would do a sentence of two on topic.

I have to agree with you on this. In an ideal world, we would all be mature all the time, but this stuff does happen.

-posting something off topic - "transformers are better"
Slightly Off topic And evolution are fine.  Don't do the other two.

I disagree with this, there is nothing wrong with that on its own, it is when it goes on too long that there is a problem.

As I see it there are two problems with the off-topic.
1) When a thread about one thing becomes about two things.
2) Complete thread derailing.

I don't see why the solution Meg put forth couldn't work though.

[EjoThims]

They can't really ever drown out discussion because we can just split off whatever is off about it into a new discussion, unless they hog both threads.

In every case the poster would whine "this is on topic" or would do a sentence of two on topic.

That's when "point them to it and move their post. If they keep doing it, then they get in trouble," as mentioned by Robby, would come into effect.

[BG_Josh]

Looking for feedback.

As I expected, it happened.  Here is the thread

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2264.0

This is the post I erased

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2501.msg28485#msg28485

Here are the facts
It's a discussion on what the term gamer means
Soundwave presents his ideas.  Hes incorrect, but there's nothing wrong with that.
He simply repeats his "point" over and over and Does not listen to anyone and makes no attempt to learn why.

My personal take is a structural approach.  That's why the "no harping" rule exists.  It makes it so people are forced to make new points of reexamine old ones differently.  This would be a non issue, a natural solution.

So, what would you do?  Keep in mind the idea is to foster discussion. 

(note: Soundwave is wrong(period).  Its actually funny that in such an abstract topic he could manage to be so absolutely wrong.  That being said, if you think he is right.  Discuss that in the actual thread, not here.)

[bhu]

My only concern would be how it was implemented.  Using your above example I'm assuming it's well known the two of you disagree (at least to readers of said thread), but only one of you has the power to remove the others posts.  If used too often, that could cause you more harm than good, because you would be perceived (or at least possibly portrayed) by those who disagreed with you as being not such a nice person.  It could be used to cause more derailment than letting one person rant as it could be used to undermine you personally (or the mods), not just the topic of the thread. 

That being said I'm also a lil overly paranoid at times and maybe it won't cause you any problems at all.  But it is something you should consider.

[EjoThims]

Here are the facts
It's a discussion on what the term gamer means
Soundwave presents his ideas.  Hes incorrect, but there's nothing wrong with that.
He simply repeats his "point" over and over and Does not listen to anyone and makes no attempt to learn why.

I think a more appropriate response would have been to, in that thread, explicitly note that due to the repetition and lack of understanding on his part, you would no longer be acknowledging his points. If he then continued to harp on them continuously without contributing to furthering of the discussion or learning on his part, a simple note that further efforts would get the posts moved, possibly to the garbage.

While the second is implied (at least to someone who understands your style, even though I still do not personally like it), neither is directly stated, and you yourself are the one responding to him most frequently, giving the illusion that you are actually interested in his explanations, whether they be valid or not.

[Soundwave]

Frankly the majority of comments made in that thread by josh amounted to little more then personal attacks, when called out on it he deleted my post.

 Im not the only one who has an issue with it either but frankly if silencing people you dont agree with is acceptable behavior here i dont much see a point in posting on these boards period.

I find it odd that the person accusing others of anti intellectualism, delusions and stupidity is the same person behaving in such a manner.

He simply repeats his "point" over and over and Does not listen to anyone and makes no attempt to learn why.

There is a poster around these parts that follows this to a "T" so to speak, but it surely isnt me.