Posts that go off topic

Quite often, a post gets away from its original subject. I am guilty of engaging in this myself (as recently as today in fact). I'm genuinely not sure whether or not I like it, and was curious what we all thought about it?

Obviously your opinion may vary depending on the 'new' topics being discussed when a post deviates, but do you like the idea of it happening in general? Despite stating that I am uncertain where I fall, I will not be voting for undecided, as I think it will make for a more interesting result if we all pick a side (no judgements for anyone who does pick undecided).

So, are you:

1. Yes - I like how organic it makes the conversations feel, and it often enhances discussion of the original post.
   
2. No - It interupts interesting conversations about the original topic, a separate post should be made to discuss the new one.
   

I enjoy the well thought out discussions but I don't want this forum to become just another social media trash heap of disinformation and opinions.

>2 L.Bloom: I completely agree with the sentiment of this but I do like hearing the different opinions that people have.

I think the advantage here is we have moderators who actually understand what that should involve, they do a great job!

I've been on a forum where this was strictly forbidden and it really kills the flow and interesting discussions. Most of the time it's unproblematic anyway, so I really prefer the more relaxed system on here.

I don't enjoy when the OT posts are not FS related.

Also that's why I worded the question the way I did, I am aware there is a risk of tangents leading to discussions becoming like those that appear on Facebook and the like.

I just leaned yes, but I'm curious for those voting no what their reasons are? Is it basically what I said above, or do you have any different reasons for voting the way you did? Same goes to those plumping for yes.

>4 SF-72: Oh that's interesting to hear, I haven't any first hand experience of it being outright banned so I wasn't sure if my suspicions would be correct, but it sounds like from your experience rigid rules do more harm than good.

I think if a discussion on a tangent starts to develop between members they should shift it to private messages - when the topic is no longer about books, authors, or anything to do with books, that’s a sign it has veered off and needs to be moved off the board. There are many avenues for discussions on politics, pandemics and whatever else is going on in the world - the internet is full of such places. On the other hand, there are very few places where the discussion is books and, more specifically, the Folio Society. I would hate to see this forum lose that focus and the discussions will drag the entire group down. So, in a nutshell, tangents that are no longer about books are not tangents I care to read here - there are other places for that.

I like OT if it’s still about books, but if it ends up being about things like COVID or politics, I would take it to a private convo.

There are several reasons to dislike it when a post goes off-topic, but two spring to mind immediately.

Take the recent thread entitled 'Folio Society using stickers as covers now' as a case in point. That got derailed early and is now mostly about Covid-19. People come to a LibraryThing group about the Folio Society to comment and—just as important—read about the Folio Society. The internet is not short of message boards on the pandemic, politics, and countless other topics, so it would be best to keep those topics there. Of course, non-FS things will creep in here and there, which is fine, but when they start to dominate the conversation it gets a bit much.

Also, if someone wants to search old threads to find out information about book X or collection Y, then it becomes something of a slog when there are scores of comments to wade through that aren't related to the nominal subject matter at hand.

Most of the posts that go off the rails here usually lead to arguments where people insult each other, people slam Folio society, or uncomfortable discussions. If it goes off topic about literary stuff, make a new thread. If not then I say cut the chatter. I come here to talk about books and when threads derail it makes me want to avoid them. If I wanted chaos and negativity I would go to Reddit. I left Facebook and Instagram because I ended up getting riled every time I was on them. Then I come here just wanting to talk books and folio and its just Facebook 2.0 with people arguing about Brexit and Covid it really lessens my enjoyment.

It's mostly welcome to me: there's a forcedness when discussion is strictly limited to Folio Society books or even to books in general, and exposure to fellow members' wider tastes, interests and concerns is helpful in forming my impression of whether my response to a book is likely to have much in common with theirs. I leave some threads alone when their subject seems unlikely to interest me at all, it doesn't bother me in the least that there are such threads, and I've blocked the occasional member to protect my blood pressure, usually when their individual subjective judgments were habitually presented as authoritative assessments of value.

>11 PrestigeWorldWide:
Exactly. I've noticed a growing trend for discussions here becoming more 'Facebook like'. FSD is like my second home (I'm the quiet one in the corner) but I'm not even looking at some of the topics as I know the tone and content will not be for me.

>7 DanGoddard98:

It definitely did a lot of harm. It prevented a normal flow of discussions and the way these strict rules were enforced definitely inhibited members with regard to posting. That forum has very little activity left, while another with a similar set of topics but far more relaxed moderation is thriving.

I find it quite irritating (although sometimes quite amusing) when the conversation veers off from content and quality of a book, into people's pub bore opinions.
I think its quite valid when discussing a political or contentious book (such as when FS published Ayn Rand) that comments should have a personal and political edge to them, but how a discussion about the cover of a book being a sticker or not, went to arguments over covid vaccines, seemed strange.
or maybe not seeing as the book was Journal of the Plague Year!

I personally prefer for topics to stay, well, on topic. The ability to create limitless new threads serves a function of being able to organize discussions into a somewhat manageable format, which I can appreciate.
However, to play devils advocate: in the case of the “stickers-turned-COVID” thread, it was the original thread poster who allowed the agenda to veer so wildly off course by inexplicably deciding to bring up age and health in course of a discussion which had been quite focused theretofore. My concern is, would it be fair to force all threads to stay on topic, even when the thread creator might not be fussed about maintaining order (or sometimes, apparently even works to derail their own threads)?

>16 Green_krkr: I think the ‘policing’ of the threads on this issue can be done in a commonsensical way by the contributors themselves, as much as by the admins. This is exactly how things work in the real world.

If a group of people meet with the express intention of discussing a particular topic and someone starts talking about Brexit, or covid, or last weekend’s football results, then it won’t be long before someone else brings things back to the matter at hand.

It almost takes an arrogance, or at least a supreme lack of self-awareness, to think that everyone else wants to hear what you think about the government, for example, when the audience to whom you’re preaching have gathered (virtually, at any rate) with the expressly stated intention of talking about FS books.

So what do people think of the Summer 2021 FS books? A bit of a disappointment to me. (Humor)

I don't see what's the problem in creating off-topic threads. First of all, that already happens often enough, although the topics, of course, don't all veer away from the group's main subject in the same degree.

But, most important from the standpoint of someone interested only in one kind of conversation, it's simple to eliminate any thread one dislikes from one's view--just hit "Ignore this topic" in the upper right corner.

Wouldn't have bothered to post this much but the issue that prompted >1 DanGoddard98: is vitally important. Anti-vaxxing is a blight caused by rampant ignorance, not superior knowledge, and it's highly irresponsible to champion it in any venue to anyone.

>18 LBShoreBook: nevermind that, do you think The Winds of Winter will ever published?

>18 LBShoreBook:
>20 Uppernorwood:

Just throwing this out there randomly. Threads that veer off topic? Discuss.

>19 LolaWalser: The issue isn’t with the creation of off-topic threads so much as with the derailment of threads that have been created for specific FS-related topics (e.g. a conversation about stickers on covers becoming an argument about Covid).

>22 Caput_Lupinum: I agree. If someone wants to start a topic "OT: Vaccines" - that's fine, I'll happily block that topic, but when the topic is about stickers on covers, I think it's much better to keep it on the "stickers on covers" subject - veering off into something about the author, or other book related topics is just fine with me. But, here we are discussing topics going off topic, and then we go off topic with >19 LolaWalser: "Anti-vaxxing is a blight caused by rampant ignorance, not superior knowledge, and it's highly irresponsible to champion it in any venue to anyone." That is what I don't want to see, and it is somewhat ironic that its happened on this topic which is on off topic topics.

>22 Caput_Lupinum: welcome to the internet! Any place can become an argument about anything, if people are angry enough

>23 vmb443: "veering off into something about the author, or other book related topics is just fine with me."

I completely agree that in an ideal world tangents would be unrelated enough to be interesting, but remain close enough to the original topic to stay relevant. I guess the problem if that were to be a rule, would come down to the policing of it, as it can be quite subjective. It would be difficult, as with so many things, to determine where the line is.

A strong yes for five reasons:

1: It makes the conversation more natural and flowing.

2: I like to hear what this educated community of readers thinks about non-Folio Society topics.

3: I have never seen a forum where strictly enforcing off topic thread rules improves things.

4: When I'm bored by an off topic digression I can just painlessly skim past it, in the same way I skim past boring on topic digressions.

5: Currently I think threads rarely derail to the point where it is an issue at all.

To argue the other side though, sometimes on forums you may get 2-3 posters who insist on aggressively bringing the same debate into every thread, and it becomes tedious, as the same points are repeated in multiple places with no development.

I don't think this is happening now, but if it was felt to be becoming an issue there might be an argument for creating a few threads covering the most common derailing topics, and keeping all discussion there, while allowing off topic discussion on any other subjects.

I guess the current thread candidates would be BREXIT, Covid-19, and the Soul-Destroying Woes of Books Being Printed Outside of Western Europe.

>22 Caput_Lupinum:

That's a common occurrence and hardly needs heavyweight conferencing on solutions--people can be reminded the digression is taking the space of some other conversation and invited to open a dedicated thread.

The internet has been around for nearly thirty years, this isn't some new-found-land.

>23 vmb443:

Is that supposed to be funny? I was referring to the digression that prompted DanGoddard to ask the question in the first place, and which HE didn't start. If people are going to spread misinformation and lies about matters of vital importance like the current pandemic and vaccinations, other people are obliged to counter that garbage.

Next month I go back to working in a hospital; I have a choice repertoire of opinions about Covidiots who endanger the public and people like me and my colleagues.

If you "don't like it", apprise yourself of the use of Ignoring threads and Blocking members.

>27 LolaWalser: ,,,and Blocking members.

Done, with a little regret.

'How did we ever get to this point … to the point where, as I put it in The Covidian Cult, “instead of the cult existing as an island within the dominant culture, the cult has become the dominant culture, and those of us who have not joined the cult have become the isolated islands within it?”' (CJ Hopkins, https://consentfactory.org/2021/04/21/the-covidian-cult-part-ii/ )

>27 LolaWalser: The internet has been around for nearly thirty years, this isn't some new-found-land.
Yet the technology and the way people interact online changes wildly decade to decade. Social media is a mid-2000s phenomenon - LT itself was created in 2005, one year after Facebook. Social protocols and technologies have shaped the landscape in ways that a 90ies AOL user would be definitely at loss on how people interact online today. Having said that I wholeheartedly agree with your statement just above - I just thought the Internet reference was a miss.

On a side note, sorry for derailing :)

>27 LolaWalser: I have to say that both of your replies to me don’t bear any relation to what I’ve said, nor to the other contributions to this thread.

First, you replied to me saying you don’t see any problem with OT threads, so I pointed out that we were talking about the derailment of existing FS-related threads, not the creation of OT threads themselves.

Now, you reply to me saying that we hardly need ‘heavyweight conferencing on solutions’ and that ‘people can be reminded the digression is taking the space’ of what the thread is meant to be about. That’s *exactly* what I suggested in comment 17.

What are people's thoughts on the Israel/Palestine issue?

> My thoughts are somewhat similar to the Irish issue.

>31 LondonLawyer:

It's not healthy to trust Twitter posts.
:-)

>31 LondonLawyer:

I could provide some, but, in spite of my having responded with a Yes to the thread's opening question, I'm inclined to think that there are a few issues which, aired here, have a significant potential for setting us at one another's throats without being very likely to enlighten anyone. As was my intention with Covid, then, I'll have nothing to say unless provoked: and very possibly nothing even then.

>34 terebinth: there are a few issues which, aired here, have a significant potential for setting us at one another's throats without being very likely to enlighten anyone.

It's the usual suspects, Paul - politics and religion. Best avoided imo.

>1 DanGoddard98:
Quite often, a post gets away from its original subject. I am guilty of engaging in this myself (as recently as today in fact). I'm genuinely not sure whether or not I like it, and was curious what we all thought about it?

It happens sometimes, just like any conversation. I don't see it as being a particular issue. There are some contributors/contributions where I find my mind mentally glazing over fairly rapidly - quite a few arguments where I don't even understand what is being said. I tend to slide over them. Same could be said of a fair number of on-topic threads too (usually to do with science fiction or fantasy! ;-) ).

>35 folio_books: ...politics and religion. Best avoided imo...

Good advice, Glenn, and probably worth following even if the benches clear.

I prefer threads to keep to the topic, and if that isn't about the FS or books, then clearly marked OT. If the thread then veers off then I, personally, prefer if the discussion is then through PM. I stopped following the FB Folio pages as I read a considerable number of posts that I found to be quite unpalatable.

I was taken aback to find posting on the FB pages to be detrimental to my well being - and I was, honestly, blindsided by this. I would agonise over my comment if I disagreed with a post on FB that I found to be offensive.

So, hands up - I prefer threads to be on topic and I'm very grateful to the efforts put in by the moderators.

>36 Willoyd: I agree to a point that it's like any conversation, but I do think 1 fairly large difference is that conversations in person are less likely to go off in a direction you are not interested in talking about; you are ulikely to continue having conversations with people that always lead them in directions you have no interest in discussing, and in person conversations take place in much smaller groups. Online you have limited control over who contributes to one of your discussions, and the sheer number of people taking part means it's almost inevitable that somebody will make a comment you do not like/have no interest in. This leads to others (myself frequently included) to get sucked in and a sort of snowball effect occurs.

Finally the nature of text based discussions mean that conversations don't die as naturally as they would in person, people have the chance to say the thing they wish they had said, as the discussion is just sat there waiting to be continued, whereas in person conversations are much more in the moment, and are harder to just pick up at a later date. In my opinion this is a big reason why online communication so often descends into arguments, because there is endless opportunity for someone to get the last word.

>39 DanGoddard98:
All fair points, and I suspect we've all encountered those tendencies on social media. I think I've found the conversations here to suffer from those issues rather less often than elsewhere. Occasionally one aspect descends into argument, but most of the time they either get submerged in amongst other posts determinedly staying on topic, or peter out. At least that's my impression - I may be objectively wrong. There's certainly no harm in being reminded of the dangers, not least because tolerance levels vary. It's just unusual to find myself perhaps with higher than average tolerance - my OH wil vouch for the fact that it's usually the reverse!

>40 Willoyd: I completely agree that the things I brought up seem less prevalent on here. Maybe something to do with the way it's set up, in that it requires slightly more effort to create/respond to posts than on certain other platforms. And of course the makeup of the people here plays a large part as well.

I think the results of the vote are unlikely to change drastically now, so it seems a good time to look at the (provisional) result. I've been glancing at the numbers over the last few days, and 'Yes' got off to a strong start, but as the days have gone on 'No' has been gradually gaining, so that it is now really very close. As it stands, if we include 'Undecided' with the 'No' votes, it is exactly 50% on each side - not particularly helpful for drawing any conclusions, other than there being no consensus.

I'm not suggesting any rules would ever have been introduced based on 1 vote on 1 thread, nor that I believe any change was necessary, but in a hypothetical world it makes it very hard to decide whether or not the direction of conversations should be more strictly controlled.

To reiterate one of my sentiments further up in the comments, our moderators already do an excellent job of monitering discussions.

>41 DanGoddard98: To reiterate one of my sentiments further up in the comments, our moderators already do an excellent job of monitering discussions.

Yes, though - forgive me if I'm mistaken - I don't think we had active moderators until very recently: my understanding was that members' flagging and the LT management have historically taken care of spammers, and arguments would now and again rage until the protagonists grew weary.

I'm a member of two online forums concerning an interest some way removed from books. One is an utter free-for-all and at least 80% of its discussions have no bearing on what everyone is ostensibly there for, the other is a very tight ship and wouldn't for instance tolerate such postings on unscrupulous dealing practices as are commonplace here. There's a place for both forums, each has members who couldn't or wouldn't fit at all into the other. I hardly know Facebook at all, but from the sound of it the Facebook FS group is quite a different beast from this one on LT. Seems that any online group acquires an established character after a while on the basis of its member set, its format and its moderation if any, and is generally resilient enough to find its own way back to something very like that character after any upheavals.

>42 terebinth: I think you are correct, however having only joined recently myself I can only speak to my own experience (ie of there being moderators here).

It's interesting hearing about the wide range of experience you have regarding this sort of thing. Personally I think there is quite a nice balance struck here, in that there is plenty of deviation from topics, but for those who aren't a fan it is possible to avoid. Given you have exposure at either end, I'm curious as to where you think this forum lies on the spectrum?

Regarding Facebook I did think about doing a similar vote in one of the groups there as a point of comparision, but I just couldn't face using that particular platform. I occassionally look at one of the groups there (although by no means frequently), and while on the whole it's perfectly genial discussion, I always feel on edge with Facebook - it feels like at any second things are going to go off the rails and somebody is going to actively try and provoke a reaction. Here, at least when arguments do occur it's because of people sharing their actual opinions, as opposed to trolls looking to stir the pot. In fairness, I think access to a lot of the FB groups might require approval by their moderators now, which probably helps somewhat.

I voted yes for this one. I am all for posts that go off topic--the breadth and depth of the knowledge members have here is astounding and often only appears when we aren't strictly talking about Folio Society books. I much prefer wandering conversations that touch on translation, or latin texts, or literary theory than just lists of Folio books ordered. That said, I agree with >35 folio_books: on politics (especially) and religion. We get it too often as it is, and it just riles people up.

>43 DanGoddard98:

I wouldn't claim my experience to be extensive, it's just disparate. Of the two forums I mentioned, one handed out a multitude of lifetime bans in its formative time to, generally, well-intentioned individuals (as far as I could see) who found its rules autocratic and counter-productive - one chap for instance who was determined to expose obvious eBay scams to protect fellow members. The other forum, the free and easy one, I haven't visited just lately as when I last did it was largely occupied with a certain hot topic of the moment about which its active members seemed unanimous. I've never known anybody to want the stricter forum to be more strict than it is, and hardly ever heard from anyone who would wish the looser forum to be looser yet. Here, the policy and the blend seem about right to me, and there's for the most part a spirit of warm cooperation which induces me to stick around in spite of my ever diminishing interest in the Folio Society's current activities. If I'm ever drummed out for being too little of a Devotee it will be no more than I deserve, and I promise to harbour no hard feelings.

I like threads that drift off-topic when the topic is still books, reading, authors, and so on. Telling people never to drift off-topic is pretty pointless. But it is possible to shut down or even ban certain topics: Brexit, IRL politics (not stuff like FS publishing Ayn Rand), Covid, religion and so on. As other people have already said, it's not like there's a shortage of places to discuss those topics elsewhere on the internet, and if I wanted Facebook or Twitter type discussions, I'd be on those social networks.

>46 the_red_shoes:

Brexit can actually be quite relevant for those of us who still want to buy FS books from outside of the UK, so a blanket ban would be a problem. Same for Covid since it actively affects shipping and shipping costs to a lot of places. Which already shows the essential problem of blanket bans on topics. And I'm saying that being pretty sure that's not what you meant by topics that should be banned. That was probably being for or against Brexit, vaccinations yes or no etc. But that's exactly what can happen with forum guidelines that contain fixed rules, which can then be taken very seriously indeed by some moderators and quite literally kill the vivacity of a forum. I've seen it happen. Which is why I'd rather have a more relaxed attitude, like we have here, and put up with some discussions I don't like every now and then, than the opposite. When it went to far for me with Brexit, I just stayed off that thread, problem solved.

From the Wiki, Folio Society Devotees Information, Glossary:

OT - off topic (where all FSD threads seem to go!)

I don't think rules are the answer.

>43 DanGoddard98: I completely agree about FB, personally I think that the personal nature of it makes it worse as well. I often ask my friends if my book obsession make me seem as bad to them as some of the FB lot seem to me!