| |
This is a reply to both Kelly and Steve (close by in the tree) and the FUT is
set to just admin.general
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
(snip)
I have forceFUTed your post (and am considering others in the tree as well)
to .debate as it’s veering in that direction (discussions of the merits of
funding are probably not nearly as well suited to geek). Note that you can
always change the FUT back if you disagree with good reason or because you
are going back on topic for .geek
|
Hmm, thought I was on topic for .geek, but you’re right, it was starting to
become a debate. I agree the followup on this should go to .debate.
|
Had further thoughts about this - are there guidelines about recognizing at
what point a thread should be rerouted into a different group? This
particular thread, IMO, is pretty harmless (now), but I can see how
threads can deteriorate.
I’d like to understand what’s proper so I can do it correctly myself, rather
than make the staff work harder.
|
I don’t know what’s proper. We’re experimenting. I hope people won’t get too
upset about it, till we get it right.
I did an experiment (before we had this tool) where I asked everyone to cancel
and repost and it was a horrific failure, the thread never got rebuilt properly
and in hindsight I wish it hadn’t come out that way, but I don’t regret
experimenting, we never would have known how poorly it worked without it.
Forcing the FUT is a very gentle tool in the first place compared to timeouts,
banning, or cancellation (which is not even a tool available to the admin
without permission from the poster) as the respondent can always point it back
if they don’t agree... so I don’t think it’s too fierce to go ahead and act
preemptively.
As to notice, I agree with Steve, I don’t think not giving any notice at all is
a good thing by any means, but what I am struggling with is, is it appropriate
to just mention it in passing on one post in the thread, or does every post
changed need a tagalong reply, or does the forcer need to mail every poster? I
think the latter are overkill, some notice somewhere in the thread ought to be
enough.
As to the specific point when a thread veers, it’s a judgement call. I may be in
the trap of “hey a new tool, I’m going to use it as soon as it seems slightly
needed”, and not know it, but I hope not. Slap me around if so (do it here
please, not in .debate). However I am severely compartmentalised, I tend to
always think the thread has veered even if others don’t. Could be a character
flaw, I dunno.
My experience with this particular (NASA/congress/shuttle) topic the several
times it comes up is that sooner or later it always clearly belongs in .debate.
I may have acted too early. But I already saw some of the codewords... (Shuttle
eating everything else for example). Prove me wrong! Set the FUT back and stay
out of debate areas... I’d like that because it meant that the thread stayed out
of debatable stuff and there would be a teachable moment in there.
Also, I’d like to learn from this on a thread that maybe isn’t QUITE as
incindeary as the color thread is, so that if a bigger flareup comes we know the
tools and their effects better. Sorry about making a science project out of it!
Helps?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) The fact that past threads became debates doesn't mean that talking about NASA is OT for .geek. I'd recommend judging each thread by it's own contents, not by the history of the subject. (...) Regardless if anyone actually replies to the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) Had further thoughts about this - are there guidelines about recognizing at what point a thread should be rerouted into a different group? This particular thread, IMO, is pretty harmless (now), but I can see how (URL) threads can deteriorate>. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
