Non-Hostile Takeovers

[spicewitch]

It's interesting to find myself once again on an old-school linear forum (as opposed to nested ones like tumblr and reddit). I'd forgetten the way that the most-recently mentioned topic, especially if people reply to it, becomes THE topic. A thread originally about all kinds of tweaks, is now a thread entirely about ahadaban's total overhaul of the Draw rule. Which is interesting! But it's sad to see it eat the whole thread.

If we were on a nested forum, that draw rule would be one sub-topic. There'd be a nested thread for the "debate with ahadaban" discussion, and there'd be a thread for the "CML rule" of a less-punishing but still-dwindling Mulligan rule, there'd be a thread for "draw 9, put 2 back", and people could make new little nested threads for other tweaks they've tried or wish to try.

Does anyone else notice or get bummed by thread hijacking? I was reading someone's Cube List and the 2nd page was entirely eaten up by a commenter bringing up their own cube (similar in some ways to the OP's list) and getting advice for it. It felt like that should have been its own thread, and the commenter should link to it, ask the OP to come give some advice, and not take over the original thread.

But maybe I'm just spoiled? What do you think?

I'm really jonesing for multiple parallel discussions - I think we could juice a lot more value from discussions if people maybe tended to reply to the whole thread instead of replying primarily to the most recent comment.

 

[Eric Chan]

Hi! Welcome to Riptide Lab.

It has been <0> days since a thread was hijacked.

 

[ahadabans]

Yeah. Totally my bad dude. I didn't mean to have that happen. That general topic is one that I find very interesting, and when those types of threads pop up I tend to get diarrhea of the mouth. And sometimes that diarrhea is highly controversial. I apologize.

 

[spicewitch]

I don't think your wordy post is the problem. And I don't think any particular individual replying to you is the problem. The structure of the system is, I think, what causes multiple people to unwittingly devote all their time to one small debate at the expense of the larger conversation.

The structure of a nested conversation system probably carries its own systemic issues that I'm blind to because it's the system I've grown most comfortable with.

Because changing the structure of the system is nontrivial, I guess what I'm advocating for is: "Be aware that the system encourages you towards narrow conversation styles and make an effort to pull deeper from the thread's contents" or something like that. No one did anything wrong, but if I'm not crazy, it's possible to do better by being conscious of the invisible walls that funnel people away from broad conversations towards myopic arguments (or even towards complete changes of topic that have nothing to do with the majority of the thread and/or the OP - these mid-thread topic changes are the things most in need of being forked to new threads, IMO).

 

[Diakonov]

To be honest I enjoy the unpredictable and stream-of-consciousness nature of the threads here.

 

[ahadabans]

In my defense, the thread topic was pretty non-specific and the post you made was fairly open ended. So it didn't feel like a hijack until long after it became one.

 

[Eric Chan]

Putting on my Serious Hat for a second, so that it won't seem like we're ignoring the problem presented in this thread:

I don't disagree with your points that a nested, hierarchical thread structure - a la Reddit - leads to more on-topic discussion, whereas the current linear thread format leads to people chit chatting about the thought du jour. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

With a nested structure, you tend to get better answers for specific, pinpoint questions - "What are the best white three drops?" "Recommend me some good, durable sleeves?" It allows everyone to weigh in with their opinions, is well suited to the Q&A type of discussion, and perhaps most importantly, remains very readable, especially for the occasional forum lurker. Someone who hasn't signed up for the site, and may only dabble with these forums once or twice a week, can still get value out of clicking on any particular topic, and viewing all of the answers at a glance, while ignoring discussions that go too deep.

With a linear structure, you lose the ability to track the best answers for pinpoint questions. In return, you gain the benefits of organic conversation. As you've seen, folks here often wander off topic within any given thread, and before you know it, we've moved from discussing the latest Conspiracy spoilers and instead are debating the merits of the Lorwyn art style. Is this a good thing? That depends on who you ask. But I've observed that many of these unexpected thread twists have led to great cube design ideas, ideas that may not have been generated from the simple Q&A format. There's no question that thread hijacking can lead to dead ends or unproductive discussion, but it's also how some of the best conversation on this forum comes about - people piggyback on someone's most recent thoughts, and add their brainstorming ideas to the virtual napkin, even if it doesn't directly address the original question posed. I think we can all agree that a good, real-life lunchtime or coffee table discussion tends to spin organically from one topic to the next, with all of its participants fully engaged throughout. This style of conversation is currently the ring we've thrown our hat into, and for the most part, our forum members have embraced it. Having said that, it's probably harder for a lurker to follow any particular thread, especially if they visit infrequently. But I would rather the forum cater to its active members first, before its passive members.

Other sites seek to enforce 'rules' about how off-topic any thread can go, and actively modify posts and threads alike to keep order, but we've more or less taken the opposite stance here. I would say that, as a thread creator, you can and should butt in at any given point, and feel free to gently nudge people back in the right direction, if you feel that the discussion is veering too far off track. However, we've carved our identity with a hands-off moderation tack so far, and people appear to enjoy the freedom they have in discussing whatever may come to mind, on any and all topics.

 

[VibeBox]

I've observed that many of these unexpected thread twists have led to great cube design ideas

 

[Dom Harvey]

I know they are just examples, and this is far from the only reason why, but Reddit and Tumblr are both terrible places for serious discussion in my experience.

With nested threads I don't think you would get people replying to each/every comment, instead you would have people replying to the relevant individual subthreads while others lie dormant. One nice thing about the big threads we have now is that, when someone bumps it to respond to the main topic, you see some tangent that sparks a new idea and then...

 

[Suicufnoc]

This issue is also exaggerated by the fact that rather than trying to keep everyone on topic, deleting posts, splitting threads constantly, etc, we just go for it. The disadvantages are that its a little harder to follow threads, it can be hard to find information, and some conversations die due to takeover.

On the plus side, if I were on MTGS and some thread put my mind on a tangent, I would think about, decide it should be a new thread, but not developed enough to be its own thread, and just give up. Idea lost.

 

[Eric Chan]

I will say that, as the creator of many short-lived topics on this forum, some threads are just naturally stronger than others. If a particular topic seems to be veering off course quickly, it could well be that there isn't a whole lot of meat to the subject. On a more heavily enforced site, the thread would simply wither and fall into obscurity; over here, people stick around and shoot the shit instead. Topics with more meat on the bone will have everyone chomping at the bit to get their two cents in, and tend to be more resistant to disruption; they self-correct mostly on their own, even when people blatantly try to steer the proverbial eighteen-wheeler off the cliff.

(i think i met my quota of mangling four metaphors per post)

 

[Chris Taylor]

So what your saying is interesting dicussion topics have regenation abilities?

 

[shamizy]

If a topic can sustain a conversation on what it was originally about, it will do so. That's just not the case for many threads on these forums however, and the relaxed moderation is actually refreshing compared to other forums where strict moderation is such a buzzkill to any meaningful conversation you might be having. The discussions here are organic and natural from topic to topic. Once there's nothing much else left to talk about, threads just drift out of view until it's time to bring them up again. Then we can start the discussion all over with new perspectives and looking over old ideas (like in the Breaking Singleton thread).

I actually prefer the posting of general topics that devolve into conversations about the topic and other related ideas. Sure, it may not give the exact answer you're looking for, but it's infinitely more entertaining and generates way more interesting discussion than a simple "What are the best _____ in ______?" I've found so many interesting takes and discussions on other aspects of cube in threads that weren't even part of the first post.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I find that Reddit is great for sorting out the "best comment", but I hardly ever find it conducive to actual debate and productive discussion.