# How Long is Too Long?



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 18, 2010)

I know, as a measure of coutesy and forum rules, that we are asked to stay on-topic in a thread. But what constitutes off-topic-ness? If a discussion naturally spawns questions that aren't directly related to the original topic, have we really gone off-topic? When does a series of side questions become enough to warrant a brand new thread? Where is the balancing line between trying to keep the boards from being cluttered with topics that don't deserve their own thread and keeping a thread from being cluttered with side questions?

I am often told that I'm veering off-topic, but the sidebar that has usually triggered the scolding doesn't usually seem to me to be worthy of its own thread, but still worth discussing in the context of the current thread. Of course if the scolding comes from a mod, then I *know* that I've veered too far. I'm curious to hear what others think about this, especially any moderator feedback.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 18, 2010)

There's no "rule"; how could there be?  Are you asking for a figure like "7.9 degrees off topic is fine, but 8 degress is not"? 

It's just one of those things where we all have to use common sense.  Generally speaking we don't moderate threads based on whether people are on topic or not, although there may be the occasional rare exception.  We're far more concerned about rudeness than about managing conversations.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 18, 2010)

My personal rules for when it's okay to post entirely off topic:

1/ If there was a question in the first post, has it NOT been answered to my satisfaction?

2/ Is there an interesting ongoing discussion?

If either of the above hold true, I endeavor to at least also contribute some on-topic in addition to whatever off-topic I wanted to post. But if neither is true -- a question thread which has received a good answer, for example -- then IMHO it's not harmful to post off-topic stuff.

For instance, now that your question has been answered (to my satisfaction), I'm free to disco.

"_Stayin' alive, stayin' alive, whoo-oo-ooo-oo_", -- N


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 18, 2010)

> I'm free to disco.



You know, disco got a bad rap after the 70s. I like many of the old disco dance songs (though I don't dance to them).

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Feb 19, 2010)

Nifft said:


> For instance, now that your question has been answered (to my satisfaction), I'm free to disco.
> 
> "_Stayin' alive, stayin' alive, whoo-oo-ooo-oo_", -- N




Just, please, not on roller skates.  We're trying to run a family joint here...


----------



## Pseudonym (Feb 19, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Just, please, not on roller skates.  We're trying to run a family joint here...




That reminds me of this idea I had for a Roller Derby LARP based on the Car Wars rule set ...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 19, 2010)

Morrus said:


> There's no "rule"; how could there be?  Are you asking for a figure like "7.9 degrees off topic is fine, but 8 degress is not"?
> 
> It's just one of those things where we all have to use common sense.




I know there can't be a hard and fast rule. I'm just starting an open discussion to gauge where common sense on off-topic-ness and starting new threads lies. By my measure, at times, I don't feel like I've taken a side-conversation in a thread too far, but I get responses anywhere from a polite "could we please get back on-topic" to a rude "get out of *my* thread!" So, either I have no common sense (as evidenced by me leaving myself wide open for a joke here) or some people are too quick to jump down others throats for having a related side conversation.


----------



## gill_smoke (Feb 19, 2010)

*irony*

Umm, did you not notice people trying to thread-jack after the answer?

I think they were trying to prove your point for you.

Now Where is Goldmember?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 19, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I know there can't be a hard and fast rule. I'm just starting an open discussion to gauge where common sense on off-topic-ness and starting new threads lies. By my measure, at times, I don't feel like I've taken a side-conversation in a thread too far, but I get responses anywhere from a polite "could we please get back on-topic" to a rude "get out of *my* thread!"




Well, the moderation staff doesn't really recognize much in the way of thread ownership.  

However, as a guide for being nice to your fellow posters, consider this - is your sideline taking up enough posts that one has to start "weeding through" posts to find the ones on the original topic?  If folks only have to skip over a post here or there to read the on-topic stuff, you're probably fine.  If they have to sort out who is talking about what, you're probably taking up a bit too much space in the original thread, and you'd probably want to fork.

Mind you, sometimes the entire thread drifts off the original topic.  So long as that's not in the way of anyone trying to discuss the original topic, we dont' see that as problematic.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 19, 2010)

So what does everybody think about curling in the Olympics?


----------



## Nifft (Feb 20, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> So what does everybody think about curling in the Olympics?



 You know, American bowling somehow became associated with disco, and is having a bit of a cultural resurgence in terms of social acceptability. The balls are florescent, the music is silly when you've had a few beers, and cute girls can be found in the vicinity.

Curling lacks disco, and remains uncool.

So: do whatever you want with curling in the Olympics. I'll skip that part (or watch figure-skating re-runs instead).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 20, 2010)

If I'm bothered by my own off-topicness, I do not post. If I am bothered by someone else's, I try to redirect the discussion, I ignore it, or I abandon the thread.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 20, 2010)

I think there's merit to the idea that whoever started the thread has some say as to posts being off-topic.  I wouldn't go so far as to say they _dictate_ what is off-topic or not; only mods really have the power to dictate how to post or how not to post on the boards.  However, if the original poster of a discussion asks that things be moved back on topic, I think that warrants some consideration from other posters.  Otherwise, that is essentially a thread-jack.

I think that "off-topic" itself does have a definition, and can broadly be determined by looking at the thread.  If a post is essentially ignoring the topic of the discussion at hand, that is off-topic.  That doesn't mean the conversation can't grow organically, and with a message board may be thought of more like a tree.  However, to use this thread as an example, the threads on disco are clearly off-topic, despite the rest of Nifft's post that is on-topic.  Obviously this is a clear cut example, but generally applicable.



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> For instance, now that your question has been answered (to my satisfaction), I'm free to disco.




I have to entirely disagree with this though.  Simply because a poster has posted to a thread to their satisfaction, that doesn't open the gates for off-topic stuff.  While it might be the end of the discussion for the specific poster, it might not be the end of the discussion for the original poster or other posters.

I know we're all being silly in this thread, and overall the board is pretty light-hearted and jolly.  However, if (for example) Vyvyan Basterd steps in and asks us to please take it elsewhere, I think we have an obligation to do so.  After all, the stuff about the disco isn't actually contributing to the thread discussion.

Unless, of course, I just made it contributing, in which case my head hurts.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> However, if the original poster of a discussion asks that things be moved back on topic, I think that warrants some consideration from other posters.




Being considerate is always cool.  



> However, if (for example) Vyvyan Basterd steps in and asks us to please take it elsewhere, I think we have an obligation to do so.




If it is an obligation to do so, you aren't being considerate.  I far prefer it when people are good to each other because they want to be, and because it makes the boards a nicer place, than because they feel the action is an imposed requirement.


----------



## Rel (Feb 21, 2010)

I think that a lot of the women involved in Curling seem hawt, if that answers the question at hand.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 21, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> I think that "off-topic" itself does have a definition, and can broadly be determined by looking at the thread.  If a post is essentially ignoring the topic of the discussion at hand, that is off-topic.  That doesn't mean the conversation can't grow organically, and with a message board may be thought of more like a tree.  However, to use this thread as an example, the threads on disco are clearly off-topic, despite the rest of Nifft's post that is on-topic.  Obviously this is a clear cut example, but generally applicable.



 My goal is frequently to educate, illustrate, and entertain.



LightPhoenix said:


> I have to entirely disagree with this though.  Simply because a poster has posted to a thread to their satisfaction, that doesn't open the gates for off-topic stuff.  While it might be the end of the discussion for the specific poster, it might not be the end of the discussion for the original poster or other posters.



 If the discussion picks back up again, so does the endeavor to contribute to it.



LightPhoenix said:


> Unless, of course, I just made it contributing, in which case my head hurts.



 It was always contributing: it was in the illustrative and entertaining category.



Rel said:


> I think that a lot of the women involved in Curling seem hawt, if that answers the question at hand.



 Congratulations, you've transformed an off-topic thread-jacking into a thread jacking off topic.

"_Stayin' classy_", -- N


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Feb 22, 2010)

Rel said:


> I think that a lot of the women involved in Curling seem hawt, if that answers the question at hand.



I've heard that many women find male curlers hot, but it is less about looks and more about them actually using a broom to sweep something.  My wife seems to agree...


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 22, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> I've heard that many women find male curlers hot, but it is less about looks and more about them actually using a broom to sweep something.  My wife seems to agree...




I wonder if a Swiffer Sweeper WetJet would work for curling? 

Well, I'm convinced now that we Americans suck at curling, male or female. At least we beat Canada in something that matters - Men's Hockey - on their home turf.* 

GO USA! 

*But not in the final game that mattered...  Congrats, Canada, and thank you for hosting a wonderful Olympics.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Feb 22, 2010)

Sorry, I realized that I went off topic and never answered the original question posted:  

How long is too long?  Well, you are supposed to call your doctor after more than four hours...


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 23, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> How long is too long?  Well, you are supposed to call your doctor after more than four hours...




Oh, SNAP! 

Talk about putting the "ED" back in the EDition Wars!


----------

