On "Thread Derailment"

[Gogf]

It seems as if the current CFC policy for "thread derailment" is to split out the posts which have strayed from the original topic into a new thread and then to close that topic. I want to clarify that I have not been a victim of this policy and am not discussing a specific instance—as such I do not consider this post to be PDMA. I am not discussing a moderator action but what appears to be a CFC policy. I want to argue that this should not be the policy of CFC for the following reasons:

1. Discussions naturally change topic over time, and threads are supposed to be discussions. In my view, when a thread has been "derailed," two possible things have happened: either a.) the thread has changed topic "legitimately," that is, because the original topic naturally led into another topic, required further discussion of a subpoint, was predicated on a controversial assumption, a post sparked people's interest, etc.; or b.) someone intentionally tried to change the topic, because they wanted to avoid discussion of the original topic, they wanted to create a flame war, or they were otherwise acting maliciously. I do not think it makes sense to split or moderate cases which fall into (a), because threads are meant to be discussions, and discussions naturally follow the course of (a).
2. If a thread is split, it should remain open. Unless the split posts constitute an illegitimate topic of discussion (defined as in violation of the rules), then the thread should remain open, as people are obviously interested in discussion the topic. If the posts are redundant with some other thread and the relevant moderator for some reason objects to having two threads discussing a similar topic (causa perdita here) then the posts should just be merged into the existing topic.
3. If the original topic is still of interest to people, they remain free to continue discussing it in the original thread even without a split except in the most dire circumstances. It is possible for two conversations to exist simultaneously within a thread. In fact, this has been the case of almost every popular thread I have ever visited in CFC. Except in the rare cases in which the "off-topic" new topic has so dominated the thread that is has become truly difficult to conduct a conversation of the original topic, and a reasonable number of users actually want to continue to discuss the original topic, it does not make sense to split the thread, because no "original conversation" is being affected.

In conclusion, conversations wander, and there is no need to control them strictly. The "soft thread derailment" which has recently been prosecuted is to CFC what a so-called "victimless crime" is to real life: something which is illegal solely because it is illegal. CFC should conduct a policy of encouraging and advancing discussion wheresoever it exists within the bounds of the rules. This means allowing people to discuss what they are interested in, rather than enforcing an inordinately strict understanding of topicality which renders real conversation impossible because we are constantly forced to move from thread to thread in order to advance beyond the basic tenets of a topic without having useful and interesting posts purged arbitrarily. If people want to talk about something rather than something else, they should be allowed to.

 

[Camikaze]

FWIW, it's not policy. It's entirely dependent on individual moderating styles. And I don't think any moderator (I don't at least) splits off such derailments if they are just a natural progression of the topic, or what you describe as a 'legitimate' topic change. It's only for cases that in which the controversial assumption you mention has quickly come to overtake and detract from the actual topic of the thread. Tangents are acceptable, but not when their link to the topic is tenuous at best, and particularly not when the topic of the derailment is one that frequently arises as a derailment. The split is largely to make it clearer to observers or the posters involved just what exactly is wrong with the derailment. Splitting it up makes it easier to see the progression of the derailment, hopefully allowing for people to see what to avoid in future. Also, it's possible in some cases that the thread was split off an already locked thread, in which case that portion of it is certainly not going to be re-opened. Also also, leaving it open would seem to encourage derailments, under the logic of 'well, mods will just split it off into its own thread anyway'. And yes, two parallel conversations are possible, but not when the derailment comes to dominate a thread.

The general problem with derailments in regards to people discussing what they want to discuss, is that they are quite welcome to do so elsewhere, in a new thread. But dragging an existent thread off-topic means that people who wanted to discuss the topic of that thread are less able to do so (this annoys people). It becomes about what the thread derailers (?) want to discuss, rather than about what posters in general want to discuss. I guess it's the same principle behind having 'threads' in the first place. We could just place all posts in one big conversation, but it'd be much harder to discuss specific topics. Having threads on specific topics allows for that more specific discussion, and derailing those threads undermines that idea.

 

[Mise]

I don't mind the splitting off of threads but I don't understand why they are closed shortly thereafter. EDIT: Ok, I understand that some of them ought to be closed because the derailment involves a lot of trolling and flaming. That's cool with me. I'd rather you split off the trolly derailments and closed them, in order to preserve the original thread, sans trolls.

 

[Turner]

Splitting off off-topic posts is okay and encouraged. I'm not aware of any instances that the split has been locked, unless it was so spammy that there was no reason to keep it around. Generally then it should be moved to the Bin and never seen again.

 

[Earthling]

It has always been "policy" - or extremely widely practiced by mods across all subforums, to allow the OP to arbitrarily request deletion of post or closure of a thread that they feel strays too far "off-topic" from what the OP wanted to discuss anyway. This is done all the time, maybe you're suggesting the mods doing it without request of some OP goes too far but don't know how you could know complaints weren't made.

 

[LucyDuke]

Sometimes mods mention that a closure was the OP's request. Perhaps it could be a standard thing.

Mods delete posts on request?

 

[Abaddon]

I assume their own posts.... i ask mods to delete mine all the time.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Sometimes mods mention that a closure was the OP's request. Perhaps it could be a standard thing.

Mods delete posts on request?

OPs can request that their threads be closed, and mods will usually do it if they don't see any particular problem with it.

Posters sometimes request that their posts be deleted, but it's up to the individual mod to decide (since it's such a pain and sometimes posts are OPs and whole threads (and other people's posts) can be deleted along the way as well - we have cases of people asking for all their posts to be deleted ).

Posters shld think (carefully) before they post; rather than post whatever and then ask for some mod to clean it up for them later. Chances are... we won't bother.