I love this quote from Hasbeen:

<< I believe an original poster gives a thread air, but it is the other posters who give it life. I love those threads that develop a life of their own, with a number of posters taking them all over the place. They are the most fun. >>

( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5205#141052 )

But where does that leave us in regard to the first OLO forum rule?:

Keep responses on topic.

( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp )

I see lots of posts that are off-topic… and I’m as guilty as anyone for doing it.

I was fastidious for a long time about not doing it, but then I loosened up and started to roll with the flow.

I’ve seen only a single example of a post being deleted because it was off-topic.

So it is generally allowed to happen, despite the rule. I mean, no one reports this sort of thing to Graham Young because they are not perturbed by it.

So I guess I’m inquiring as to whether this is a good rule for this forum or whether it needs to be redefined. And if so; how?

If half you old fuddy duddies took your meds before firing up your computer we'd be fine.

Redefine rules?

This is as loose as this place has ever been and Graham is trusting us not to balls it up. A little bit of self control and not rambling would be great. Some are just ridiculous with what they post. I've seen some people leave four or five MAMMOTH comments in a row. Have your say about the immediate relevant point and come back to see if the "discussion" has evolved.

I won't click links unless someone has posted the link as evidence of a statement and I'm thinking: 'Shenanigans'. Summarise your link. Don't be lazy. I won't click outside websites.

Ludwig,

I think the key word here is "discretion".

Sometimes, especially in the articles section, someone will drop in a post that goes no-where near the article topic, and is just an opportunity for the poster to bang on about their obsession. Those are the cases where Graham will intervene and remove a post.

Mostly though, if it's done discreetly, going a little off topic is overlooked. In the general section, we're more likely to see a thread meander all over the place, often starting out in Rome and ending up in Timbuktu. It's more or less up to the thread's author to call the shots at the beginning and most of us are usually more interested in the shape the thread takes and the evolving interest that accompanies it.

Keeping the responses within the topic is what causes our bureaucrats from being of no use to society. This narrow minded, tunnel visioned approach is what prevents people seeing the wider picture. Look at law for example how the lawyers drift off into all sorts of side alleys. That's why they win for the wrong side of society. If they stayed within the rails of law it'd be totally different & better of course.
When it comes to debate & exposing varied views we get a broader picture & this in turn builds wisdom. It's about learning from others like it or not. It's about learning from other's experiences, their wisdom or lack of it. Life, unlike Academia, is not a single straight line. It meanders like the minds it supports.

Off topic ramblings broadens the mind? I rest my case, your honour.

I think it also depends on the violence of the swerve away from the topic at hand. If we're discussing asylum seekers and I start to regale you all with a recipe for chocolate cake, well....

Most deviations from topic are linked by various associations so that it's a gradual effect - and yes it's the way we learn, in that one thing leads to another.

& so you should StG, rest your case that is.

Don't forget it was todays old fuddy duddies who invented computers & the net, so just think yourself lucky young fellow.

God I wish I was just a little less fuddy duddy, then I might be able to put a smiley in places to help convey my true meaning.

Fuddy duddies invented driving too, but that doesn't mean you get special treatment on the road. You don't get to drive around at your own speed indicating and randomly breaking where you feel like it, like you think you do, apparently. Play by the rules like the rest of us. The internet ... as you would know seeing as you invented it *rolls eyes* ... is a big place. There's LOTS of space for people to mentally stumble around like they're on a metaphorical zimmer frame.

It can be a bit frustrating for the initiators of
the threads at times - but all things in moderation.
It's only when things get dowright nasty (on emotive
issues) and completely de-rail the thread that's when
the OLO forum rule of keeping responses on topic
should apply.
Otherwise - we can learn more from various
meanderings - then if we stuck strickly on topic.

"Along a straight road you will travel faster
but you will see less."
(Old Lithuanian saying).

Off topic ramblings broadens the mind?
StG,
Off-topic, I have a couple of wide angle lens adapters for sale. I think you could use them.

I have an 8 - 16mm ultra wide angle lens. But thanks.

It seems people don't like being told the truth. Funny, that. If your rambling is relevant to the original poster's topic then go for it. Otherwise, start your own topic labelled: "Rubbish, and other insights into my dementia riddled mind".

I'm sick of links being the topic. I'm sick of off-topic rambling. Apparently I'm less entitled to these emotions as others are to waffle. I like my waffles with cream and maple syrup. Prefer to keep it that way.

It seems people don't like being told the truth.
StG,
Ain't that so, you just showed us a perfect example of this. Topics are hardly ever of the tunnel,one-lane variety. There are always more sides to the story or so the saying goes. I'd think it impossible to have a discussion on anything without the need of drawing attention to something off-topic in order to show the varied factors influencing the ins & outs of the topic that is the core of the debate.

>Ain't that so, you just showed us a perfect example of this.<

Uh .. okay...

Much like a complete story, every discussion is completed by many roots to feed the trunk - as created by the OP. I'm not disagreeing here. But off-topic IS off-topic. There's no justifying rambling.

The very recent "When is it okay to kill" discussion is a PERFECT example of the original poster's (OP) position isn't all as black and white as others came in and highlighted. It became interesting. I had my input but for various reasons - mostly work and being tired - I became a spectator. What I didn't do was come in and turn it into a refugee discussion. Thankfully others attempted ... and are currently attempting ... to point that boat - 'cuse the pun - back in the right direction.

Perhaps a little bit of self control is in order when it comes to points that will derail the vibe of the thread.

I have the strong desire for the law and rules to match accepted practice. I find it quite unfortunate when there is a mismatch, which happens a great deal across our society.

I have written about this on OLO in regard to road rules, Queensland’s nude beaches and codes of conduct in our workplaces.

Lots of road rules are just simply not policed at face value. Some are policed only very rarely or not at all and hence are just not observed, even by careful drivers, and with no negative consequences. Eg: speed limits in roadworks zones.

There are numerous nude beaches in Queensland, accepted by local communities, councils, police and the state government. But there is no such thing as a legal nude beach in this state. That’s an absurdly contradictory state of affairs.

A code of conduct is supposed to be the rule book governing behaviour in the workplace. But in my experience, over a period of several years, it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on!

So it is my desire to see the rules match accepted practice here on OLO as well.

A lot of off-topic posts are put up here, which appears to be perfectly acceptable to most if not all posters and to our administrator.

So I’d say that this rule needs to be redefined, if for no other reason than the principle of having rules matching accept practice as closely as possible... and that they really can be quite misleading if they don’t.

Lexi, you wrote:

<< It can be a bit frustrating for the initiators of the threads at times - but all things in moderation. It's only when things get dowright nasty (on emotive issues) and completely de-rail the thread that's when the OLO forum rule of keeping responses on topic should apply. Otherwise - we can learn more from various meanderings - then if we stuck strickly on topic >>

Fair enough.

Actually, rule No 2: ‘Do not flame’, covers the nastiness aspect.

So maybe the ‘keep posts on topic’ rule is actually completely redundant!?

Ludwig,from my observation there needs to be more debate and far less ad hominem.

Character assassination is all too common on many sites because many have not the capacity or truth/facts to back their assertions.

I have a one make classic car site that I frequent where I have not seen a nasty word in the 7 years I've used it. This is a great achievement when the folk on one side of the Atlantic think a hood covers the people part of a car, & those on the other side think it covers the engine part.

I have seen some very nasty exchanges on some sites over nothing more important than the best paint colour for something.

I think the folk on here, who are often discussing some very strongly held ideas, & opinions are remarkably civil. I admit it cam be frustrating when some can't see the obvious superiority of my arguments, but I try not to be nasty. That is with other posters.

I have no sympathy with the authors of opinion pieces, who have not done their homework, or are pushing a political line. They are, I believe, fair game.

Dear Ludwig,

Perhaps I didn't express myself well.
Nobody likes or supports an illogical
and abusive poster - and its to that
that I was referring when things strayed
off-topic.

The point that I was trying to make is
for instance if arguing over football
don't say, "All Collingwood players are
rough hoodlims." This makes you appear to
be arguing on an emotional level - not a
mature intelligent one. A more effective
approach would be a subtle hint that the
players often use physical force to overcome
the opposition. This response may be unlikely
in the heat of the moment, but it has more
chance of being acceptable. Sound reasoning
will conquer unreasonable generalisations
every time.

It is a good idea to re-read one's
postings before sending them. However, the art of
reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired. I'm still learning.
BTW: Does anyone know where Pelican is? We haven't
heard from her for sometime now. I hope she's allright.
I miss her contributions to this forum.

Hey, Lexi,

I noticed Pelican's visits were becoming more intermittent, and now she doesn't seem to be around at all. Maybe she's found some other hobby to take up her spare time....I miss her sensible and balanced contributions too.

Dear Poirot,

I hope that's all it is.
Perhaps she'll come back to us
after a while. I hope so.

I must confess there have been times
when I've contemplated leaving -
but Shadow Minister keeps dragging me
back (hee, hee).

Seriously though,
I would miss the forum and its many and
varied contributors.
As Belly pointed out - we've come to
know each other over the years. I'd like to think that
there's a certain connection.

Yes I’ve been wondering where Pelican has got to for a while now.

Poirot, you have written a post that is entirely off-topic, but which is perfectly acceptable as far as I’m concerned, and I presume that there wouldn’t be single poster on OLO that would have a problem with it.

This is a good example of where the ‘keep responses on topic’ rule falls down and really does need to be redefined.

I am just being pedantic here?

No definitely not. There is a lot of merit in striving to make the rules match accepted practice as closely as possible. All manner of rules and laws …. even if it takes several sentences to explain exactly what the situation is.

Ludwig,

I've had to stop myself twice from posting that chocolate cake recipe on this thread : )

Things are quite often far more casual in the general section, and often we just resort to casual banter. I had a thread called "Smells" which ended up being so interesting because we let it go where it would - often happens once a thread has been going for a while.

I've seen it happen (mainly in the article's section) when posters twist a topic inside out to fit their hobby horse and post almost completely off topic. I think that's why the rule exists, and I think it should remain.

We only have to use our common sense, keeping in mind that Graham realises that we're old enough to police most of our discussions and to regulate ourselves. I think, for the most part, he'd much rather not interfere unless it's absolutely necessary.

I have a friend who has been an ardent OLO reader ever since I started in 2005, but who has steadfastly refused to become a contributor. He does however often express his views to me via email or via a verbal earbashing!

A lot of the time he agrees with me, but sometimes, sheesh, he really gives Hasbeen a run for his money as to who is the grumpier old fart!!

He wrote this today:

Ludwig, I disagree with the thrust of your thread and consider it to be a no-brainer; a vague analogy might be compared to the (first) newscast I listened to on my beloved Radio National. It started with some bullsh!t about an Australian race horse winning some race in Ascot, wherever that is.

Like WHO CARES? The world is GOING TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET, indeed some are even predicting Armageddon as early as December (:-))) and they (R.N.) make that the lead article??

Nah! And if you will pardon the pun our G.Y. is steering this huge ship called O.L.O. admirably. (Admiral. Get it?)

(Oh, let's start a thread arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin!)

I really think your motive for starting this "Remain on Topic" was just another excuse to push your "Rule of Law"/ "Code of Conduct" barrow, and that's alright, but don't forget the 'meat and potatoes' articles/threads.

i.e. write about something that matters! :)

P.S. Leave little Graham alone!

Well…. he is a friend some of the time! { :>\

<< I disagree with the thrust of your thread and consider it to be a no-brainer >>

Bahhhh!!


<< I really think your motive for starting this "Remain on Topic" was just another excuse to push your "Rule of Law"/ "Code of Conduct" barrow, and that's alright… >>

Of course it is alright. The rule of law is very worthy subject matter for discussion on this forum.

I note that ‘law and liberties’ is one of the categories for both general discussion threads and articles.

<< …G.Y. is steering this huge ship called O.L.O. admirably >>

Well I certainly agree with that.

Now I implore him to sign up to OLO and start putting his copious views on everything up here for all of us to read…. and be duly entertained by!! Er, I mean… for all of us to admire the enormous wisdom inherent therein!

Think your self very lucky Ludwig you old fart, that I'm a bit tired tonight, or this old fart would be having a bit of you, for that dig.

I have just spent the last couple of days putting a new fuel tank in my old Triumph sports car. They rust through from the inside out. I repaired it about 12 years ago, when money was very short, with kids still at school, but it has found another place to rust a hole. This time it is a brand new one for me.

Of course the suppliers think they are made of gold, the price they charge. Those British automotive designers sure did not think of clapped out old blokes overhauling the things, when they built them. God my back & knees are stiff.

The bread maker has just beeped, so the fresh bread is done. I'm batching, so I can have a couple of hot bread sandwiches, with thick polish salami, & tomato on them for dinner, something I could never get away with usually.

There, I think I've hijacked your thread enough now. Pleasant dreams.

I read it, and still don't believe it...lol..Now what constitutes any type of whats on-topic in this time and day? I hear the bingo lady calling..lol

Being on topic in this world today is moot at best. In Today's world, the humans have to deal with many tasks.....sorry for sounding a bit clinical, well...thats online opinion for you:) What did you expect?

cc

G’moornin Hasbeen

I did indeed sleep well after reading your entertaining post. Hehe haaaah!

You are such an old OLO scoundrel. So totally and deliberately off-topic, and with the intent of hijacking the thread!

Oh dear. What should we do with you??

GY should kick your sorry butt from ‘ere to kingdom come!!

.
No. Your comments are always welcome.

This is just another example of how a post can contribute to a thread while being totally off-topic.... I think!? ( :>/

Have a great day.

Ludwig.."I hear the bingo lady calling"....sorry for the members that think this site is anything but a true government which, this is the place to practice?

Are the uni, that will take your place..are you worried? or....WHAT?....do you fear the up and comings?
"what you feed them, is what you will get." I have chickens too.
and they are not stupid...(they are watching everything that you type( or didnt the people not see it?

Its OK...the adults, which they learn from.....do you have an explanation for the currant global situations?.. and can you tell us why with truth?

It takes 7 billion people just to wake up")or are we just over-reacting, while we watch our world,which as we watch,...and what can you add to this mathematical/English to which what we all live on?

:( now Iam off topic:)

cc

i concure[but if all agreed..thats all the opinions would reflect]
its like living with yes men..giving each other faux platytudes

but if i agree
why waste time posting

but if every topic is only i agree
why bother even reading it..the to-pick isnt worth the space it takes

we forget much media that becomes topic
is red herring to distract from other news issues
those wanting only their adgenda's will love it

further the error of your summise
just this week i have had one post deleted immediatly after posting
and the world lost my cure for fair fax broadsheet survival[the other was re the increase of huge percentages for your electicity]supply

but no lets talk about only this topic
ignore that fuel tanks rust..is part of the business plan]and rising prices of fuel tanks..indicating it worked[but that aint to topic..yet wernt deleted]

its selective[i recall i had more than a few hating me so/they collude in complaining with the end of banning my id..[and deleting offensive corrective post..]many times at many forums

its not the topic they didnt like..
but what facts revealed in diss-cussing it..in its fullness..

once i used to reply..to allow the poster..to further expand the topic[but narrow minds see ionly things framed within narrow confines[but worse..they think we all do..or must]..and one day their narrow minds win.

OUG....your at your best. And of course, on topic as allways:)

When you have something to say with substance, you let me know:)

cc