Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Candlekeep Web Site
 Site Content
 Off-topicness at Candlekeep

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
The Sage Posted - 19 Nov 2008 : 02:37:52
I'm re-directing a previous discussion from the "Everyone please read!" scroll to this shelf, in an attempt to further gauge the opinions of scribes on this particular subject:-
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by Kuje

I can agree with this one and there does, to me, seem to be a lot more off topic or one line comments in many threads lately, making it annoying to read through some threads.
Heh. Indeed, I've noticed a slight increase in this myself. [Though, sometimes, I've been just as responsible for said off-topicness].

How do other scribes feel about this issue?

30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Jakk Posted - 21 Aug 2009 : 04:00:51
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by Jakk

I agree that a certain amount of off-topic discussion is good for idea stimulation, and in cases where the scroll creator (or the question-answerer, in the case of the Pages For the Sages ) takes the discussion off-topic, or likes the direction the topic drift has taken (and says as much), I firmly believe the mods should let it go. In most cases, we're fully capable of bringing a scroll back to topic on our own, as jarring as it might be to the tangential discussion in progress, and in some of the scrolls that I've started, I've been fascinated by the direction tangents have taken.
Aye. But we'd have to be very careful should we ever adopt such a method. Some scribes aren't really interested in tangential discussion. They only want to read about the subject of that particular scroll. And so, we, as Mods, need to ensure the desires of ALL scribes are considered when they contribute to a discussion. If tangential discussion becomes an important discussion point in and of itself, there's always the option for scribes to create a new scroll dedicated to discussing this new side-topic.




I see your point, and I have to agree... this is why I am looking forward to the rumoured feature of CK 2.0 allowing existing posts to be moved to new scrolls (even if only by mods) to keep such tangential threads all together in their new scrolls; this will help teduce the off-topicness even further, I would think. Just a thought.
The Sage Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 02:05:18
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk

I agree that a certain amount of off-topic discussion is good for idea stimulation, and in cases where the scroll creator (or the question-answerer, in the case of the Pages For the Sages ) takes the discussion off-topic, or likes the direction the topic drift has taken (and says as much), I firmly believe the mods should let it go. In most cases, we're fully capable of bringing a scroll back to topic on our own, as jarring as it might be to the tangential discussion in progress, and in some of the scrolls that I've started, I've been fascinated by the direction tangents have taken.
Aye. But we'd have to be very careful should we ever adopt such a method. Some scribes aren't really interested in tangential discussion. They only want to read about the subject of that particular scroll. And so, we, as Mods, need to ensure the desires of ALL scribes are considered when they contribute to a discussion. If tangential discussion becomes an important discussion point in and of itself, there's always the option for scribes to create a new scroll dedicated to discussing this new side-topic.
Jakk Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 01:33:18
I found this scroll by accident (how's that for off-topic?) and I thought I'd put my two coppers in:

I'm in agreement with most of the early posters to this scroll. I think the mods do a great job here as compared to some other forums (this is the only forum I visit regularly, and has been since I joined). It took quite some time for me to work my "4E Realms shock" out of my system, and I want to thank the mods for being patient with me through that process. I agree that a certain amount of off-topic discussion is good for idea stimulation, and in cases where the scroll creator (or the question-answerer, in the case of the Pages For the Sages ) takes the discussion off-topic, or likes the direction the topic drift has taken (and says as much), I firmly believe the mods should let it go. In most cases, we're fully capable of bringing a scroll back to topic on our own, as jarring as it might be to the tangential discussion in progress, and in some of the scrolls that I've started, I've been fascinated by the direction tangents have taken. If it inspires civil and inclusive discourse, it's a good thing, regardless of the divergence... as long as we're staying in the Realms (or the ruleset, or whatever general topic the scroll reflects). That's my two coppers, anyway. On with the discourse, off with the topics! Er... um... well, perhaps not quite like that...
The Red Walker Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 11:57:45
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage



I approve! Though, Wooly's just as often responsible for as much off-topicness as I am. So maybe we could use "Wooly-fied" as well?



Nah... Sagified sounds better. Besides,I would never go off-topic!


I thought about Woolified as well but, Sagified just sounds more dignified. You know, like ok maybe we went off-topic, but while we did we introduced new knowledge.

So I guess when go off in a new tangent we can say Woolified that scroll.

When we veer of into hilarity we can say Red Walker-ified.

And most importantly, when we tack towards innuendo we can ,Wow she really THO-ified that topic!
The Sage Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 06:22:58
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

Well, we Mods should be helping to re-direct such discussion to the original topic. We'll try to be more vigilant in the future.

To be clear, sage: I was not trying to imply that the mods here do anything but good work.
I was trying to be a little funny, but apparently my ham-handedness (or n00b-ness, I know not which) led to a whole....Thing that I certainly was not trying to start.
Ah. No worries then.

It can be difficult to determine a comedic or humorous response sometimes. That's why it's sometimes a good idea to use emoticons.
The Sage Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 06:21:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage



I approve! Though, Wooly's just as often responsible for as much off-topicness as I am. So maybe we could use "Wooly-fied" as well?



Nah... Sagified sounds better. Besides, I would never go off-topic!

Yeah, you just go off.
Knight of the Gate Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 05:44:33
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
[
Well, we Mods should be helping to re-direct such discussion to the original topic. We'll try to be more vigilant in the future.
[/quote]

To be clear, sage: I was not trying to imply that the mods here do anything but good work.
I was trying to be a little funny, but apparently my ham-handedness (or n00b-ness, I know not which) led to a whole....Thing that I certainly was not trying to start.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 03:12:38
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage



I approve! Though, Wooly's just as often responsible for as much off-topicness as I am. So maybe we could use "Wooly-fied" as well?



Nah... Sagified sounds better. Besides, I would never go off-topic!
The Sage Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 02:57:11


I approve! Though, Wooly's just as often responsible for as much off-topicness as I am. So maybe we could use "Wooly-fied" as well?
The Red Walker Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 01:09:00
I think that off-topicness should be reffered to as "Sage- ifying" a scroll.

i.e. Oh hells! Wooly really Sage-ified that scroll!
The Red Walker Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 01:00:44
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn

quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase

Paul McCartney.

And whether you wanted to know it or not - he played the carrot as an instrument. He's also played a fly (the kind that can come either as a zipper or with buttons and goes on your trousers, not the kind that um... flies) on a Rolling Stones song. Now that's multi-instrumentalism.



What talent that man has. Now, I'll never judge him on the Frog Chorus again.



Hey my kids love the frog song!

And he gets a pass because he played every instrument recording the Band on the Run album.
The Sage Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 23:20:41
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate

To be totally honest: It just depresses the heck out of me to open what seems like a cool topic of discussion, only to find people talking about their evil paladins. Because then I weep on the outside and die on the inside.
Well, we Mods should be helping to re-direct such discussion to the original topic. We'll try to be more vigilant in the future.
The Sage Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 23:18:43
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate

So, ummm... back on-topic to something that was brought up earlier: Is it feasible to have pre- and post- spellplague forums delineated as such?
For the most part, the titles of posts give that sort of thing away, but I feel that actually breaking them off (Sundering them, even?) might alleviate some of the 3.x-v-4e flame wars and also allow for more directed assistance.

I don't think there's really any need for this kind of delineation at the moment. And, with the fairly polarised camps of pro-4e and anti-4e leagues established here... I have a feeling that segregating specific chatter about different editions of the Realmslore will only create more problems -- rather than help solve them. Besides, the "flame wars" that you refer to have appeared to die down just a little, with most scribes coming to respect the many and alternate positions we each have about the 4e Realms. And for that, I'm thankful, because it's an example of how respectful we all are here at Candlekeep.

Instead, I think it's best that we simply all recognise that regardless of the edition... it is ALL still Realmslore!
Jorkens Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 22:25:54
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate

To be totally honest: It just depresses the heck out of me to open what seems like a cool topic of discussion, only to find people talking about their evil paladins. Because then I weep on the outside and die on the inside.
So, really, I was hoping to ghettoize the Post-Sellplague discussions so as to not lose anymore of my inner child to this phenomenon.



Give me a break. We are all using different rules to play a game.

The Realms has gone through four editions and almost everything here in the Keep is lore. If it is rules specific it will usually be stated. I can understand that it might seem easier to differentiate the 4ed. from the others, but it would become a mess. Should the novel forums be separated also, what about the rules being used in other time periods?

In general the tone her is respectful and the discussions are civil; the last thing needed here is something that will lead to an "us and them" feel to the site.
Knight of the Gate Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 22:10:59
To be totally honest: It just depresses the heck out of me to open what seems like a cool topic of discussion, only to find people talking about their evil paladins. Because then I weep on the outside and die on the inside.
So, really, I was hoping to ghettoize the Post-Sellplague discussions so as to not lose anymore of my inner child to this phenomenon.
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 22:00:18
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate

So, ummm... back on-topic to something that was brought up earlier: Is it feasible to have pre- and post- spellplague forums delineated as such?
For the most part, the titles of posts give that sort of thing away, but I feel that actually breaking them off (Sundering them, even?) might alleviate some of the 3.x-v-4e flame wars and also allow for more directed assistance.



Actually, there haven't been any flame wars in a long while here, proving that we don't really need to delineate.
ranger_of_the_unicorn_run Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 21:46:59
It seems that many people have come to the (probably correct) conclusion that having anything 4e on the site would leave CK open for C&D. I think we would probably still be okay if people just wanted to post individual 4e topics, but having a whole section devoted to it probably wouldn't go well.
Brimstone Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 21:15:00
-Another "Sundering?" Go get the Elves.

BRIMSTONE
Knight of the Gate Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 19:56:22
So, ummm... back on-topic to something that was brought up earlier: Is it feasible to have pre- and post- spellplague forums delineated as such?
For the most part, the titles of posts give that sort of thing away, but I feel that actually breaking them off (Sundering them, even?) might alleviate some of the 3.x-v-4e flame wars and also allow for more directed assistance.
Kiaransalyn Posted - 06 Feb 2009 : 10:42:02
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase

Paul McCartney.

And whether you wanted to know it or not - he played the carrot as an instrument. He's also played a fly (the kind that can come either as a zipper or with buttons and goes on your trousers, not the kind that um... flies) on a Rolling Stones song. Now that's multi-instrumentalism.



What talent that man has. Now, I'll never judge him on the Frog Chorus again.
Kajehase Posted - 06 Feb 2009 : 10:08:03
Paul McCartney.

And whether you wanted to know it or not - he played the carrot as an instrument. He's also played a fly (the kind that can come either as a zipper or with buttons and goes on your trousers, not the kind that um... flies) on a Rolling Stones song. Now that's multi-instrumentalism.

And I could've sworn that the sleeve-notes said that he was playing a Rickenbacker on Veronica.
Brimstone Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 21:36:39
-So...what is the topic again?


BRIMSTONE
The Red Walker Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 16:33:41
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase

So... who can tell me who it was that played bass on the Elvis Costello song Veronica?



Here is a qoute that answers this:

"Veronica was co-written with Paul McCartney who performs on his Hofner Bass, and features heart-breaking lyrics inspired by Costello's grandmother's struggle with Alzheimers disease."


The Sage Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 13:34:02
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase

Um... is that a Staff of the Irritated Moderator that Sage is coming this way with? Gotta run. Ta'
Silly, silly Kaje. It's a +5 Staff of the Irritated Moderator now.
The Sage Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 13:33:07
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn

Of course, the real debate in the music world is Anette Olzon or Tarja Turunen.
Well, I've always been a Tarja-fan, but I must admit... Anette does have her own unique charm.
Kiaransalyn Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 12:19:40
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase

As for your question: Anyone spelling Olsson with a Z has got to be a right twit, so without knowing either woman I'd go for the Finn.


I originally spelt it as "Olsen' then quickly checked on Wiki and saw the Z. Oh dear!

quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase

Um... is that a Staff of the Irritated Moderator that Sage is coming this way with? Gotta run. Ta'


That's the Staff that has Find Topic with unlimited use, isn't it?

Paul McCartney played a carrot? Is that like saying George Clooney played Batman? Or did he play the carrot as an instrument? I don't know if I really want to know.
Kajehase Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 10:18:54
Bugger! I didn't get to use the "has also appeared as carrot-player on a Super Furry Animals song" clue.

As for your question: Anyone spelling Olsson with a Z has got to be a right twit, so without knowing either woman I'd go for the Finn.

Um... is that a Staff of the Irritated Moderator that Sage is coming this way with? Gotta run. Ta'
Kiaransalyn Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 09:47:28
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase

So... who can tell me who it was that played bass on the Elvis Costello song Veronica?


Well, assuming it really is him, I would say Paul McCartney.

Of course, the real debate in the music world is Anette Olzon or Tarja Turunen.

Getting back on-topic, how does your post relate to threads going off-topic?
Kajehase Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 09:14:33
So... who can tell me who it was that played bass on the Elvis Costello song Veronica?
The Sage Posted - 03 Feb 2009 : 22:57:18
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

That's a good point, and one I've long tried to maintain when moderating certain discussions here at Candlekeep. Sometimes I feel it's appropriate to simply let a brief period of "off-topicness" run its course. Its fun, and sometimes it generates something new that can be added to the ongoing topical discussion. Other times, I have to step in -- either quickly or frequently -- to prevent the off-topicness from spinning out of control.


A moderator is like a chairman/woman at a meeting. They encourage debate but make sure that the points of the meeting are discussed.

Aye. But the chairperson usually doesn't make a habit of entering new off-topic points into a debate -- like some of the Mods here at Candlekeep.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000