Define "On Topic"

[kenny]

I've noticed sometimes when someone does not like an opinion (or a poster) they'll scold the poster for supposedly "not staying on topic".

Granted, totally off-topic unrelated posts are possible and not appropriate.
An example of a truly off-topic post would be in a thread that contains nothing but salad recipes, someone suddenly out of the blue just post that their sister's boss is getting a divorce.
But those are not the ones I'm pointing out here.
Someone may even make an off-topic complaint if some so much as mentions salad dressing in a salad thread.

Often the post called off-topic IS as much on-topic as many other unchallenged posts; people just do not like what was written, or who wrote it.
Then they use the off-topic technique of censoring what they don't like.

Maybe we could take responsibility for what we don't like by being more honest and accurate instead of hiding behind the "on topic" defense?

Besides, the majority of threads wander all over the place, so personally I don't really get my knickers in a twist when conversations just go wherever they go. That is the way conversations are in person. But I do accept a forum can't do that.

 

[Upgradable]

But Kenny, by nature, a message board generates a linear discussion that should be based on the OP's initial topic or inquiry. Going off in another direction is considered taking the thread "off topic."

 

[kenny]

This thread is a good example of what I'm talking about.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...sapphire-prices.149223/#post-2700955#p2700955

TL IS on topic AFAIC (BE-diffused sapphire pricing), but the OP says TL is off topic.
Absurd.

It is not just this thread.
I see this ALL the time on PS.
People tolerate off-topic posts all the time unless it rocks their boat.

 

[Nashville]

If someone asks a question like "What kind of Prada bag should I buy" and someone says "I don't buy designer, I don't care about labels, they are a waste of money" to me that would be off topic because it doesn't answer the question and it doesn't respect the OP's thread.

That's the best example I can think of at the moment!

 

[kenny]

But Kenny, by nature, a message board generates a linear discussion that should be based on the OP's initial topic or inquiry. Going off in another direction is considered taking the thread "off topic."

I agree the discipline of staying on-topic is important here on PS. (Even though I personally take a relatively tolerant view of what constitutes on-topic)

I just prefer people to be more responsible and honest and say, "I disagree because of XYZ" instead of trying to censor using the off-topic route, when the post really was not very off-topic.

 

[kenny]

If someone asks a question like "What kind of Prada bag should I buy" and someone says "I don't buy designer, I don't care about labels, they are a waste of money" to me that would be off topic because it doesn't answer the question and it doesn't respect the OP's thread.

That's the best example I can think of at the moment!

That is a very potent example.
I can see both sides of this one.

But what about a thread titled "How hard is it okay to spank a child?"
Do people opposed to any spanking of a child have to censor themselves and not post because their view is "off-topic"?

The off-topic defense is often used to censor, and I don't like it.
AFAIC Any perspective presented by an OP is not sacred, just because it was presented by the OP.

It seems like often what is most interesting is what happens to be controversial.
In a way controversial IS conversation, and everyone agreeing is not a conversation.

 

[Nashville]

If someone asks a question like "What kind of Prada bag should I buy" and someone says "I don't buy designer, I don't care about labels, they are a waste of money" to me that would be off topic because it doesn't answer the question and it doesn't respect the OP's thread.

That's the best example I can think of at the moment!

That is a very potent example.
I can see both sides of this one.

But what about a thread titled "How hard is it okay to spank a child?"
Do people opposed to any spanking of a child have to censor themselves and not post because their view is "off-topic"?

The off-topic defense is often used to censor, and I don't like it.

Well, I think most of the time (and I'm not saying I always adhere to this!) people have to use good judgment when going to answer a thread, and for this very reason. In much the same way, it irks me to no end when someone posts a topic and then people answer it and say "What is the point of this question, why are you asking this? etc." Everyone has the choice to not answer a question. And if they do choose to answer it, keep in mind that while you don't need to totally censor yourself, you should at least be respectful of the person asking the question and try not to push your own agenda on them (not you Kenny, all posters in general here!).

For example, I don't agree with piercing babies' ears. So if someone asked "How old should babies be before you can pierce their ears?" I'd skip over the question. It's not my place to give my opinion on the matter because while it pertains to the question asked, it's not really "on topic".

I think sometimes people might ask people to stay on topic when they are basically saying "This is my question, and it's not open to discussion." At which point the person answering can continue to argue their point, or bow out and go their merry way.

 

[Imdanny]

But Kenny, by nature, a message board generates a linear discussion that should be based on the OP's initial topic or inquiry. Going off in another direction is considered taking the thread "off topic."

The less polite term is threadjacking.

 

[Kaleigh]

Things go off topic all the time, it's the nature of the beast. I love a great discussion, and things go on tangents, and that's interesting.

I think when people say let's stay on topic, they are being mindful of the OP, and are being considerate... Not being a net nanny.

Heck most of the time that happens, it's the Mods. Reminding us to please stay on topic.

Nashville gave a great example..

So Kenny, what ya gonna do?? It's just the way it is...

 

[kenny]

Heck most of the time that happens, it's the Mods. Reminding us to please stay on topic.

I've noticed mods only step in when things get heated. (and staying on-topic can heat things up too)
A thread can be off-topic ALL over the map and as long as nobody is getting upset mods say nothing.

 

[kenny]

But Kenny, by nature, a message board generates a linear discussion that should be based on the OP's initial topic or inquiry. Going off in another direction is considered taking the thread "off topic."

The less polite term is threadjacking.

Yes I have agreed it is important to stay on-topic here on PS.
That is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about abusing the idea of on-topic to just censor what you don't want to hear.

 

[Imdanny]

I had a similar (but different) problem of "on topic" vs. not on another forum.

Nobody went "off topic" because nobody would respond to the topic in the first place.

No, they just refused!

The information contained in my OP contradicted their world view and opinions about different people and different matters, and commenting on what I had posted would have acknowledged the contradiction and confusion of their ever so "moderate", "centrist", and "reasonable" opinions.

Just like that- if the facts don't fit with the opinion, it's "Nah, nah, nah"- I'm not listening!

It's obstinate of me to post such threads since I know nobody wants to know the information let along process it.

But I do it anyway sometimes.

And always the same people go 'Nah, nah, nah" I'm not listening! It's strange how people can ignore facts because they're bothersome to the opinions they hold.

I wouldn't have minded if those threads had gone off topic. They were related to the topic. But nobody dared address the original posts even when prompted. Kinda sad.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

I like my vanilla ice cream with caramel sauce.

 

[kenny]

I like my vanilla ice cream with caramel sauce.

 

[Imdanny]

But Kenny, by nature, a message board generates a linear discussion that should be based on the OP's initial topic or inquiry. Going off in another direction is considered taking the thread "off topic."

The less polite term is threadjacking.

Yes I have agreed it is important to stay on-topic here on PS.
That is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about abusing the idea of on-topic to just censor what you don't want to hear.

Well that's just passive aggressiveness and I don't like it either.

 

[kenny]

But Kenny, by nature, a message board generates a linear discussion that should be based on the OP's initial topic or inquiry. Going off in another direction is considered taking the thread "off topic."

The less polite term is threadjacking.

Yes I have agreed it is important to stay on-topic here on PS.
That is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about abusing the idea of on-topic to just censor what you don't want to hear.

Well that's just passive aggressiveness and I don't like it either.

Here's a great example
I have a question for you all
... if I do not agree it is passive aggressive, PA, should I censor myself now because PA is not the thread topic?

IOW, things come up in a conversation.
There is a natural flow.
No conversation is a straight line.

 

[monarch64]

I like my vanilla ice cream with caramel sauce.

I was just going to post that I really like peanut butter sandwiches with grape jam and "chunky" PB on pre-sliced white bread. You beat me to getting off topic, Davi.

Honestly, Kenny, I think it takes two to create drama here. A poster whose thread is receiving off topic remarks is totally free to ignore the remarks instead of encouraging the drama by posting something like "I'm going to ignore your off t opic remark." Yanno? I think you can only censor those who choose to let themselves be censored.

 

[kenny]

I like my vanilla ice cream with caramel sauce.

I was just going to post that I really like peanut butter sandwiches with grape jam and "chunky" PB on pre-sliced white bread. You beat me to getting off topic, Davi.

Honestly, Kenny, I think it takes two to create drama here. A poster whose thread is receiving off topic remarks is totally free to ignore the remarks instead of encouraging the drama by posting something like "I'm going to ignore your off t opic remark." Yanno? I think you can only censor those who choose to let themselves be censored.

Creating drama...hmm.

Now if I pursued a discussion about "creating drama" would that be on-topic (allowed) or off-topic (not allowed).

Every conversation will generated branches.

 

[movie zombie]

kenny, you see it here a lot. a "conversation" starts to go off topic and the poster doing so will start their own thread.....

i don't see what the big deal was with the thread you pointed out. it was a specific conversation up until a certain point and then the OP was assertive [perhaps a bit more] in pulling it back to the original question.

why the ruffled feathers?

MoZo

 

[packrat]

One time on a forum that no longer exists in a land far far away..Someone posted a thread asking about an upcoming vaca to..somewhere, and said meh, he wasn't really excited about going, wanted to know if anyone else had been and what they'd thought. I said I'd never been there, but I felt that way about when my parents invited us to go to Vegas. No interest in it whatsoever, but we thought it would be fun to get away and enjoy ourselves someplace we'd never been. Turned out we had a spectacular time and would love to go back, so to keep an open mind b/c you never know how fun or interesting a place will be until you're there. Someone else then picked up on the Vegas thing and there were a few posts about it, and then the O/P said "MISSI!! ARGH! Don't change the subject!" and put in a fist shaking emotie and a hair pulling emotie.

It was one of the first forums I ever belonged to and I was so horrified that I'd broken some rule just by having a conversation. I do have a tendency to ramble, and I'm aware of it. Sometimes you pick something out of a post and it sticks.

 

[monarch64]

I like my vanilla ice cream with caramel sauce.

I was just going to post that I really like peanut butter sandwiches with grape jam and "chunky" PB on pre-sliced white bread. You beat me to getting off topic, Davi.

Honestly, Kenny, I think it takes two to create drama here. A poster whose thread is receiving off topic remarks is totally free to ignore the remarks instead of encouraging the drama by posting something like "I'm going to ignore your off t opic remark." Yanno? I think you can only censor those who choose to let themselves be censored.

Creating drama...hmm.

Now if I pursued a discussion about "creating drama" would that be on-topic (allowed) or off-topic (not allowed).

Every conversation will generated branches.

Now THAT is a good question. And I have no idea how it would be received, so I nominate you to start the "creating drama" thread. Hee hee.

Wait...am I off topic here by inferring that you meant by posting THIS thread that it was related to creating drama? I could very well be reading too much into this, and if I am I apologize.

 

[kenny]

kenny, you see it here a lot. a "conversation" starts to go off topic and the poster doing so will start their own thread.....

i don't see what the big deal was with the thread you pointed out. it was a specific conversation up until a certain point and then the OP was assertive [perhaps a bit more] in pulling it back to the original question.

why the ruffled feathers?

MoZo

What if I responded to the ruffled feather comment by admonish MZ to stay on-topic?

See how the stay on-topic thing can be used as censorship?

 

[kenny]

I like my vanilla ice cream with caramel sauce.

I was just going to post that I really like peanut butter sandwiches with grape jam and "chunky" PB on pre-sliced white bread. You beat me to getting off topic, Davi.
Honestly, Kenny, I think it takes two to create drama here. A poster whose thread is receiving off topic remarks is totally free to ignore the remarks instead of encouraging the drama by posting something like "I'm going to ignore your off t opic remark." Yanno? I think you can only censor those who choose to let themselves be censored.

Creating drama...hmm.
Now if I pursued a discussion about "creating drama" would that be on-topic (allowed) or off-topic (not allowed).
Every conversation will generated branches.

Now THAT is a good question. And I have no idea how it would be received, so I nominate you to start the "creating drama" thread. Hee hee.
Wait...am I off topic here by inferring that you meant by posting THIS thread that it was related to creating drama? I could very well be reading too much into this, and if I am I apologize.

Don't apologize.
This is an excellent example of the whole topic.

Staying on topic IS often arbitrary, and not doing so is often perfectly fine to everyone.
To stay on-topic, in the most strict sense, is absurdly limiting - 90% of threads would stop after two or three responses.
Whether many posts are on-topic is totally up to interpretation.

 

[AGBF]

I'll tell you what I do: I use instinct. It's completely unfair and unscientific. Like what that Supreme Court Justice did when sniffing out pornography (he couldn't define it, but he knew it when he saw it).

I get a feeling for the thread and see if I think the people talking are going to get angry if I say something off-topic or not, then I decide.

I think it's completely arbitrary and that you are right, Kenny, that the rules on when something is "off topic" shift. I think that you haven't taken into consideration all the variables, however. And I could never list them. I don't, consciously, even know what they are. I just have a keen sense for danger. I know better than to burst into some discussions.

Deb

 

[Cehrabehra]

I wouldn't be offended in the *least* if a salad thread mentioned someone's boss' divorce. To me in almost every case I'm happy to have tangents... the only exceptions TO ME are like posting that you are pregnant in a miscarriage thread, announcing your engagement in a thread where someone just broke up with their so, etc. Tangents make me happy. But occasionally they can be hurtful. To me those are the only exceptions. Sometimes someone looks goofy or even rude, but who cares? Worth a chuckle at least

 

[Cehrabehra]

I like my vanilla ice cream with caramel sauce.

Yes, I like vanilla with carmel but only if there are peanuts... otherwise I prefer my vanilla with a sprinkling of brown sugar

 

[decodelighted]

I love it when folks try to net nanny the net nannies! Is that on topic?

 

[junebug17]

I love it when folks try to net nanny the net nannies! Is that on topic?

 

[Cehrabehra]

One time on a forum that no longer exists in a land far far away..Someone posted a thread asking about an upcoming vaca to..somewhere, and said meh, he wasn't really excited about going, wanted to know if anyone else had been and what they'd thought. I said I'd never been there, but I felt that way about when my parents invited us to go to Vegas. No interest in it whatsoever, but we thought it would be fun to get away and enjoy ourselves someplace we'd never been. Turned out we had a spectacular time and would love to go back, so to keep an open mind b/c you never know how fun or interesting a place will be until you're there. Someone else then picked up on the Vegas thing and there were a few posts about it, and then the O/P said "MISSI!! ARGH! Don't change the subject!" and put in a fist shaking emotie and a hair pulling emotie.

It was one of the first forums I ever belonged to and I was so horrified that I'd broken some rule just by having a conversation. I do have a tendency to ramble, and I'm aware of it. Sometimes you pick something out of a post and it sticks.

I love kenny, but I think he's overthinking this one... I think the world would be a worse place if we had hard and fast rules about what constituted off topic. I think life is a better place when it flows.

I think what you said about vegas WAS close a freaking nuff - good grief, I cannot stand anal retentive people who hyperfocus on where the lines are and policing whether or not people are in them. And I'm NOT going to apologize for talking about vegas or anal retentive people whether it's on topic or not! And I'm not going to apologize for talking about apologizing haha

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

If it's a fun thread (i.e. not asking for advice, or help ring shopping, or something really sensitive like a break-up, divorce, death, etc.) I like it when people go off-topic. I think it lends to a much wider variety of conversation and more spontaneity (mostly this is in Hangout threads, lol). If it is a serious topic, I think it's polite to stay on topic, and if you can't contribute an on topic post, don't post at all. I don't get people who have to insert their unasked for judgmental opinion when it doesn't help the OP.

I divide posts into two categories - asking for advice/serious and light posts. For the former, I consider whether my response would be helpful to the OP (answering the question, giving advice pertinent to the question, offering condolences, etc.). For the latter, I consider what contributes to the conversation going on. The first type - not as ok to go off topic. Second type - usually fine to do so.

Oops - ETA - Kenny, I think it sucks when people use "off topic" to hide their censorship. People should either 1) stop net nannying, or 2) if you're going to do it, own up to it.