imo off-topic is really not so difficult to combat here on the Purism forums.
some of the high ranked forum threads have almost 10k (one even 23.3k but that one has been locked due to deprecation) views but only less than 100 people are actively participating in the discussion (most times it’s way less than that)
but to be on topic here - sometimes off-topic is good for getting a clearer picture on the on-topic … imo it’s not a sin to diverge so long as the OPs question has been more or less answered or is in proccess of beeing guided to something more concrete.
the road from A to B sometimes needs to pass through C or D to safely arrive at the destination.
In the thread I’m quoted in, the issue was solved by post 50 or so, and then there’s another 50 posts off-topic for whatever reason.
I don’t see the need for those posts to be in that thread. I don’t mind some meandering if things converge back on the topic, and end once solved/addressed, but going off-topic once the thread already has its solution just seems senseless.
I want people to feel free to meander off the topic of the thread, because that generates good discussion, but I also want the forum moderators to exercise their judgment and move posts to new threads.
I also think that we, as posters on the forum, should be starting new threads, so that the forum moderators bear less responsibility for keeping threads on topic. My recommendation is that when we see a thread going off topic, then we create a new thread which quotes the relevant posts from the old thread to get the new thread started. Also, I recommend posting a message on the old thread, asking everyone to move to the new thread. Does anyone see a problem with this approach?
This. It’s not like there’s a government tax per topic.
If you want to go off-topic then make it on-topic by starting a new topic on that topic - as long as it is even vaguely appropriate to the forum at all.
you can already mark (flag) posts as off-topic. If mods would agree to split off a topic that was marked as such by sufficent people: problem solved
reputable forumers have the power to rename & move topics (cool),
but not to merge (5th person opening a topic bc they need WhatsApp or a refund) / split a topic (uncool)
the forum is more powerful than people realize: after clicking reply to somebody, you can choose to do so in a new, linked thread (arrow symbol top left)
The incident that broght this up was a bit unfortunate. IMO, there was a harmless, playful, tounge-in-cheek, mildly off-topic “but my gaming platform is better than yours” exchange that quickly became more off-topic and more serious (almost another Win vs Linux war )
It was almost like somebody would throw “2D is better” in the room and then somebody would seriously debate it. (Sorry, @2disbetter i had to )
The original first off-topic remark was not off-topic enough to justify a new thread. Only in hindsight is it the post where it should be split off.
A complicating factor in splitting topics is that you can either only do it if all following posts are (still) off-topic - or (if the software allows it) you are willing to spend some time separating them.
That could tie in with my suggestion that the forum remind people to stay on topic. That reminder could also tell them how to make an off-topic reply. Making it easier for people to do the right thing is good.
Other forum software that I have used applies a tolerance to a category (or equivalent concept).
So, for example, you might have a category for “Librem 15 support” that you want to be strictly on topic. This is break/fix. People have a problem / question with their Librem 15 and they just want an answer to the question or a solution, not my thoughts on Brexit. Sorry @caliga
Then you might have “Librem 15 discussion” that would be a bit more tolerant of going somewhat off topic but still targeted at certain subject matter.
Then you might have “Open source ranting” that would be even more tolerant of going off topic.
However that approach needs to communicate clearly what the expectations are so that people can at least try to do the right thing.
I think it’s great that we’re having this conversation now while the forum is mostly people used to communicating online a certain way with a few exceptions. The anticipation is though is that, as the Librem 5 gains traction, the users of the forum will become more varied. Some not even having used a forum before.
I know the majority of you are used to confining your conversation to technical details or specific tasks, but many people see online communications like chat at a cocktail party (i.e. It’s acceptable and even expected to talk about things other than horses at a hunt breakfast even though almost everyone present is an equestrian).
Josh who works in retail who is forced to ask customers for their phone numbers might diverge on a conversation here with someone who works technical support/help desk about how ridiculously unrealistic customer service training videos are, Juanita who signs into her office temping gig by placing her index finger on the workplace smartphone might spawn an entire conversation on biometrics in the wild, and you all might have a tonne of questions for Marcia who works on a manufacturing line. Oh…and if adoption within the LEO community takes off, get ready to learn far more about UFC than you’ve ever wanted to know! I’m 99.9% sure it’s going to happen so it’s great that we’re preparing for it now.
As important as the technical details etc. of a phone are, the why is also very important when discussing a Free software/ privacy centric phone. Everybody has their own why. I originally thought that perhaps threads that had gotten off topic should be split, but now I’m doubting that’s the best strategy. Perhaps some sort of searchable tagging system for comments so if a comment fits a strict definition of a desired/traditional forum comment (HA! I don’t even know, I guess you gals/guys would be best to sort that out ) it can be tagged as such. That way, anyone coming to find specific details, etc. can “sort by” and be shown those tags first to get the information they want quickly.
Very good point: some eyes are looking for very precise info, others rather chat “around the topic”. A solution might be to link/migrate topics to a wiki. A great job for a documentation internship at Purism. Most likely many people justhang around here because they are waiting for real product news from “official spokesperson”. Maybe this is the moment right now to “push the off-button and tead a real good old paper penguin until mid next year.”
I don’t know. Some of the best discussions stem from off topic banter. The other concern is that should moderation become so stringent so as to feel like a police state, it will hamper dialog more than it will prevent rampant discussions.
I don’t personally care either way. I can see the rationale from both camps here.
Regarding my handle here, I’ve used it for along time. It is a reference to 2d video games being better than 3d ones, specifically within the RPG realms. This is mainly a critique on format and presentation, instead of being critical of the actual graphics engine employed, (IE: 3d engine used with a fixed viewpoint not first person can work great.) although I think the use of bitmaps and sprites make for a better experience.
I agree with @2disbetter that there have been some very interesting off-topic discussions. I too don’t like the idea of things being overly restrictive. I personally don’t mind discussions going off-topic too much as long as the original topic isn’t neglected or has been solved.
In my opinion the best solution, should you want to contribute to a completely off-topic discussion in a way that doesn’t relate to the original topic, is to take the initiative yourself and start a new topic. Also, thanks @Caliga for pointing out how to reply as a linked topic. I didn’t know that either.
Noone is saying not to discuss other things, just that it shouldn’t be that someone has to fight their way through 20 off-topic posts to find the 5 posts scattered between the off-topic posts that actually contribute to what that person wants to know.
I see what you did there. LOL.
You just need a ‘sort ascending’ option (i.e. sort in the opposite order to whatever gives what you are apparently not wanting).
Thank you for the information. I was on the verge of suggesting exactly this feature before you posted about it, but I was too tired to write coherently. It’s not at all obvious to me that the little arrow thing is a button with a menu. (Especially since its tooltip is “null”.)
I think this is often the reason threads go off-topic. The poster might know they are going slightly off-topic, but within the realms of acceptability. It is not worth starting a new thread for the original remark. But then, unexpectedly, dozens of other people pile on, responding to that remark. It’s difficult to anticipate when a remark might blow up out of proportion.
A cool feature might be the ability to mark sections of your own posts as off-topic, so that if anyone tries to reply to your post without quoting an on-topic section of it, or quoting an off-topic section of it, they will receive an firm suggestion to start a new thread. In the editor, the feature could be called “off-topic reply barrier” or something like that, and applied the same way as emphasis.
What about adding another icon beside the like icon which symbolises a tangent, meaning a post has gone off-topic? It functions similarly, allowing people with sufficient permissions to flag posts as off-topic x times per day, or whatever the criteria is. In my mind this allows a few benefits :
Everyone can visually identify off-topic posts
Moderators have an easier time considering what is off-topic by how many people have flagged it
A filter could be added to hide off-topic banter for anyone looking to follow the only discussion to the solution
This allows for everyone to show both how much they like particular off-topic additions
Going further with this, there could be something in your preferences that allows you to set a threshold for how many off-topic flags something needs to get for it to apply to your filter. This could include zero, which implies disabling it completely.
@tracy I’m having a cognitive dissonance telling me to not lean into this while I’m leaning into an off-topic reply to a post about off-topic posting. Did the mathematical convolution come naturally to you? The hook that you got me with was I don’t know what Top v. Bottom Posting is. I’m sure I should have asked the Internet, but here we are.
)
)
