# Why do some folks insist on replying to obviously off topic posts?



## .   1

G'day Cultur@s,

Why do some folks insist on replying to obviously off topic posts?

.,,


----------



## curly

I like your name .,,


Damn, my conscience won't le me do it, maybe it's to give people the chance to delete their posts gracefully without being made an example of by the mods, or maybe the simple fun of having an excuse to be off-topic.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> I like your name .,,
> 
> 
> Damn, my conscience won't le me do it, maybe it's to give people the chance to delete their posts gracefully without being made an example of by the mods, or maybe the simple fun of having an excuse to be off-topic.


I am glad that you changed your mind and saved me and a mod the trouble of deleting you.
What is fun about being off topic for the sake of being off topic?

.,,


----------



## rhiannonhelen

Maybe they do it for the same reason people start threads for the sake of starting a thread!


----------



## curly

. said:


> I am glad that you changed your mind and saved me and a mod the trouble of deleting you.
> What is fun about being off topic for the sake of being off topic?
> 
> .,,


It's much the same as being that idiot in class that shouts "fart" when the teacher's back is turned.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> It's much the same as being that idiot in class that shouts "fart" when the teacher's back is turned.


I still don't get it.
Why is that fun?

.,,


----------



## curly

Nor do I, but apparently it is.


----------



## belén

Well, this may be off topic but as a mod (with feelings), allow me to share with you that I can't stand it when a forero posts something off topic but says in the same post "this is going to be deleted by a mod but...blablabla offtopic offtopic"

Because, of course, we'll delete it, but I get the feeling the forero is saying to his friends "See! I told you!" and I also think "but..whyyyy, why did you do it ??" 

I don't know if it's the thrill of doing something you know is wrong or what, but it really gets me on my nerves!!

Be


----------



## liulia

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> 
> Why do some folks insist on replying to obviously off topic posts?
> 
> .,,



Well, sometimes they're funny, even though they are off topic, and it seems a shame (and a bit stodgy!) to ignore them, resist applauding their wit,  and not admit to being amused, simply because of a rule. 
And when they are really, really funny and trigger a funny response...well, it's really hard to resist! Personally, I have been very good, but that's mostly because as a recent member I have not been bold enough to break rules very often!


----------



## SaritaSarang

I think sometimes off topic things are taken too seriously. Someone may post a short comment, that was amusing or informative (but not on topic) and I don't see the need to delete them all.  I can see deleting offensive or rude things, but other than that whats the harm in leaving it?


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:
The first time I had one of my posts deleted as "off topic" I didn't understand why. Because I sincerely believed it was "on topic". Obviously the mod didn't think the same!
So maybe there are times when people don't realize, as I didn't realize, that they've wandered "off topic".
Alexa


----------



## belén

SaritaSarang said:


> I think sometimes off topic things are taken too seriously. Someone may post a short comment, that was amusing or informative (but not on topic) and I don't see the need to delete them all.  I can see deleting offensive or rude things, but other than that whats the harm in leaving it?



When the forums started, we didn't have the off topic rule, it was something that came up when the forums "grew up" and "matured" 
Sometimes, one of the old threads is revived and I realize that, even if I have participated in it as a forero, believe me, it's a pain having to read through 30 chatty posts  to get to the point of the thread. 

I am really happy that we took this decission, it has really made the place a special one, I don't pretend to sound corporative,  I really think it's one of the reasons this is a great forum. Of course, sometimes people may feel frustrated because they posted a brilliant comment and it was deleted, but I think it's worth sacrificing it for the sake of quality.


----------



## maxiogee

As cuchuflete would undoubtedly say: 
"Where's your proof that people _insist_ on doing this. This is an unsubstantiated and alarmist assertion - probably involving Martians - and your evidence is less than scant,. to say the least."​


----------



## panjandrum

Often a short comment that is amusing or informative, but not directly on topic, is not deleted.  

Unfortunately, such an off-topic comment often leads to an even more off-topic reply.  In no time a thread that is meant to be about the plural of teddy-bear is getting heated about whether Armenian whisky should be spelt with or without an e.

Which brings me back to .,,'s initial post, which the astute reader will recall is not about off-topic posts but about replying to off-topic posts.  An occasional aside is one thing, but following up and taking the thread further off topic does not help anyone.  It's no big deal to start another thread for the off-topic topic.


----------



## Whodunit

Sometimes it may be good to reply to an off-topic comment, because it _may_ arise some interesting linguistic problem. Let's consider this short conversation [invented by me]:

A (thread starter/doesn't know any German): What do you call a "camel" in German?
B: Kamel.
C (German native): By the way, those who smoke "Camel" are "Kamele" to me, too.
A: I don't get that.
C: "Kamel" can mean "idiot" in German. Haha, it was just a pun! 
... (to be continued)

Often it is just a comment that makes you think: "Hm, why not replying to this? It can't hurt. And if it's too lame, the Mods will delete it, so let's give it a try."

That's sometimes (not always of course ) the way I think about off-topic posts. If I were to be a mod for one day, I would wait until the off-topic comments (if they are not too brainless) become stupid or maybe better until they arise a new way of thinking about the matter (see my example above). I don't like it when posts are deleted just after they were submitted - some interesting linguistic problem may go this way. 

By the way, sometimes even many a mod posts an off-topic posts, and why? ... Because we're all humans and we're all the same. Police sometimes break the rules of traffic, too.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> As cuchuflete would undoubtedly say: "Where's your proof that people _insist_ on doing this. This is an unsubstantiated and alarmist assertion - probably involving Martians - and your evidence is less than scant,. to say the least."​


My evidence litters the forum and this thread.
This repetition in the face of constant moderator efforts to the contrary is proof positive of insistence or idiocy.  Take your pick.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> My evidence litters the forum and this thread.
> This repetition in the face of constant moderator efforts to the contrary is proof positive of insistence or idiocy.  Take your pick.
> 
> .,,



Please point out to me any 'litter' - even one response - to an off-topic post in this thread.
This is another unfounded assertion.


----------



## .   1

Whodunit said:


> By the way, sometimes even many a mod posts an off-topic posts, and why? ... Because we're all humans and we're all the same. Police sometimes break the rules of traffic, too.


I think that moderators may offend less than others is that they have already attended so many car wrecks caused by off topic posts.

Are you sure that Police Officers sometimes intentionally break the traffic rules.
My experience is that one too many 'unlucky' car wrecks rapidly cures that particular vice and it doesn't take too long to find the first 'unlucky' dead rule breaker or twelve.
Rules are made for a reason.  If everybody follows the rules there are much fewer car wrecks.

.,,


----------



## SaritaSarang

belen said:


> When the forums started, we didn't have the off topic rule, it was something that came up when the forums "grew up" and "matured"
> Sometimes, one of the old threads is revived and I realize that, even if I have participated in it as a forero, believe me, it's a pain having to read through 30 chatty posts  to get to the point of the thread.
> 
> I am really happy that we took this decission, it has really made the place a special one, I don't pretend to sound corporative,  I really think it's one of the reasons this is a great forum. Of course, sometimes people may feel frustrated because they posted a brilliant comment and it was deleted, but I think it's worth sacrificing it for the sake of quality.



I see your point, and I agree, it does make it easier to get to the point of the thread when you don't have a bunch of off topic posts. Good point!


----------



## Loob

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> 
> Why do some folks insist on replying to obviously off topic posts?
> 
> .,,


 
Well, my personal view - on the basis of a whole 11 weeks' membership of the forums - is that people reply to off-topic posts for many of the reasons they reply to on-topic posts: they find the subject fascinating, they feel empathy (or maybe antipathy!) for the poster, they feel they have something to contribute.... And it is sometimes hard to remember what the original question was if the debate has swirled round a bit! 

That said, I do appreciate the reason for the off-topic rule. 

Respect and gratitude to all mods for keeping us unruly foreros in line

Loob


----------



## elroy

Loob said:


> [...] they find the subject fascinating, they feel empathy for the poster, they feel they have something to contribute.... And it is sometimes hard to remember what the original question was if the debate has swirled round a bit!


 I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I remember that back in my non-mod days I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to whether a particular post was on- or off-topic, mostly because - and this is not something I am proud of! - I figured if a post was off-topic the mods would deal with it, so I didn't worry about it too much.

Because it wasn't my personal responsibility (at least not officially) to make sure that a thread did not wander off-topic, I simply read through threads and commented whenever I felt I should - regardless of whether the post I was responding to was a digression from the original question.  This meant that occasionally I responded to off-topic comments.

Obviously, since being a moderator things have become different, and having experienced both roles I strongly exhort all of our members not to behave as I did before I was a mod - the more you all police yourselves, the easier it makes our job!


----------



## danielfranco

Although the following comment is redolent of self-justification and rationalization, like so many other comments I've made before (and, indeed, read in these forums, also), I believe a few of us unfortunately have minds that seem to have a short attention span and will take the opportunity to make a comment to any reference, no matter how oblique, to whatever seems to surface in the muddy swirl of my (our?) undisciplined trains of thoughts (is this a correct double plural?).
We ought to know better.


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> Although the following comment is redolent of self-justification and rationalization, like so many other comments I've made before (and, indeed, read in these forums, also), I believe a few of us unfortunately have minds that seem to have a short attention span and will take the opportunity to make a comment to any reference, no matter how oblique, to whatever seems to surface in the muddy swirl of my (our?) undisciplined trains of thoughts (is this a correct double plural?).
> We ought to know better.


Some people just veer off on a bit of a side issue while remaining relatively true to the intent of the thread.  This is wonderful and well allowed by most moderators and we can all learn.I often don't really know why I ask some questions.
I have a vague idea but it is not until the conversation has progressed and someone proffered a different view that I begin to understand my own question.
You need no justification.
You stick pretty close to the script.

.,,


----------



## panjabigator

I'd say people reply to an off topic post not with the intention of going off topic but to say something that they view as important.  Sure, it (perhaps) disrupts the continuity of a thread but it many times is somewhat relevant.

I often disagree with the deletion of posts because I enjoy reading what is posted.  I wish there was a way where the off-topic posts (aside from chat/dribble) could be minimized and read if needed, because sometimes the off topic posts are just as interesting (if not more) as the thread topic.


----------



## .   1

panjabigator said:


> I wish there was a way where the off-topic posts (aside from chat/dribble) could be minimized and read if needed, because sometimes the off topic posts are just as interesting (if not more) as the thread topic.


It's simple.  If they are interesting enough start a new thread and we can all luxuriate.

.,,


----------



## .   1

rhiannonhelen said:


> Maybe they do it for the same reason people start threads for the sake of starting a thread!


No this is not logical!
A folderol thread can be ignored!
A folderol thread interrupts no conversation!
A folderol thread contains nothing but willing participants!

.,,


----------



## Etcetera

. said:


> Why do some folks insist on replying to obviously off topic posts?


Hi Robert,
I happened several times to be answering to threads which were then declared off-topic by the Mods. I simply didn't regard the threads as off-topics. That's all.


----------



## liulia

It's lateral thinking, and starting a new thread means losing the connection, the root of the new idea!


----------



## panjandrum

liulia said:


> It's lateral thinking, and starting a new thread means losing the connection, the root of the new idea!


There is no reason for this loss of connection.  All you have to do is mention the original thread and perhaps include a link when you start the new one.


----------



## LV4-26

panjandrum said:


> It's no big deal to start another thread for the off-topic topic.





. said:


> It's simple.  If they are interesting enough start a new thread and we can all luxuriate.


The two above quotes, to help clarify where we're standing at this point of the discussion.
The choice is therefore between
- replying to an off-topic comment in the thread where it was posted
- starting a new thread for that.

The original question was "why...?", not "is it right that...?" or "what can be done against..." or anything else. Consequently, I take it what the asker is expecting for an answer, is a dive into the depths of the average forum user's (LV4-26's, for instance) psychology.

There are two kinds of reactions possible to an  off-topic post
- a question ("what do you mean?"  "could you elaborate?" etc...) but I suppose this is not what .,, had in mind. Moreover, the verb "_reply_" doesn't really encourage this interpretation.

- a comment

Well, come to think of it, I have to be sure what we're talking about before commenting further : question or comment? I mean starting a thread with a comment (or an apparent question which is a comment in disguise) is fairly rare in most forums. Except maybe in C&S and CD. 

Therefore I do feel I need some prior clarification :
When you mention starting a new thread instead of replying to an off-topic post, what sort of thread are you thinking of?
What I  have in personnally in mind is the kind of thread that starts with :
_I, forero A, claim that X is true. But forero B argues it is not. What do you think?
_We do occasionnaly have them in EO.
Is that what you people  have in mind?


----------



## LV4-26

I thought I would start a new post not to mess things up.





> It's simple. If they are *interesting enough* start a new thread and we can all *luxuriate*.


(my emphasis)
I think this implicitly gives the reason why they ("they" or "we", let us not be pharisaic) don't start a new thread instead.


----------



## .   1

LV4-26 said:


> I thought I would start a new post not to mess things up.(my emphasis)
> I think this implicitly gives the reason why they ("they" or "we", let us not be pharisaic) don't start a new thread instead.


I was referring directly to Panjabigator.
'They' are off topic posts that have potential interest. 
You have utterly lost me with the 'we'.

I am having huge problems with the pharisaic.
To call a bloke righteously hypocritical in the sense of being separated by dogmatic adherence to an imagined belief system is a bit harsh.

I can winkle the joke about my off topic posts but your delivery could use a little polish.

Good luck with your day job. 

.,,


----------



## .   1

LV4-26 said:


> What I have in personnally in mind is the kind of thread that starts with :
> _I, forero A, claim that X is true. But forero B argues it is not. What do you think?_
> Is that what you people have in mind?


Precisely.
If this is wrong or boring or contentious the entire thread can be locked or deleted as seen fit and the original tread is unimpeded.

This does not relate to posts that just veer a little bit away from the thread topic.

I have seen many examples of the type of new thread to which you refer.  I often start a new thread myself.  It is hardly more trouble than replying.  All I have to add is a title but if the thread is fair dinkum this should be on the tip of my tongue.

Thanks for understanding me here.

Robert


----------



## liulia

Robert, you have _almost_ convinced me that starting a new thread when something sparks a "tangential" thought is really not a big deal, and probably a good idea! It helps keep things tidy and more manageable (a good thing in this context, where things need to be clear and easily retrievable). 

Defining "off-topic", on the other hand, seems difficult - it's a very subjective thing!

And sometimes the comments involved only make sense in the context of the previous three or four posts.


----------



## .   1

G'day liulia,
I am glad that someone is listening.
I have been utterly convinced to police myself far more heavily in this regard.
It is no fun watching two old hard noses go toe to toe in a room full of civilised people.

.,,


----------



## LV4-26

. said:


> You have utterly lost me with the 'we'.
> To call a bloke righteously hypocritical in the sense of being separated by dogmatic adherence to an imagined belief system is a bit harsh.


Sorry, transcultural difficulty here. By "us", I really meant "me" but thought "let me not be" - especially with "be", of all verbs - sounded weird. In French, this device (_we _for_ I_) is commonly used in essays. My bad. <end of linguistic digression. I'm going to start a thread in EO.  >.

Yes, the "_they_", in the sentence I quoted from you, referred to posts. My own "_they_" referred to the _some folks_ in the title. I should have realized the proximity of those two "_they_"s in my message was a source of ambiguity.

I know nothing about others' psychology. All I can do is extrapolate from mine. That's the main reason why I shifted from _they_ to _we/I_. Indeed, I remember having occasionally dropped a comment or two to an off-topic post. I think the reason that I didn't start a new thread then was that it would have been much more committing. We don't always feel like taking responsibilities. We have to be sure that the new topic is important and interesting, that it is, well, worth a whole thread for itself.

Again, I wish to make it perfectly clear, that I'm trying to answer the question that was actually asked, i.e. why  (and not "is it right?").
Especially as a moderator, my comment to the unasked question is : "please do, start new threads, don't be shy. Change your  habits". (a substantial part of the answer to your original question might be in the last 3 words).

EDIT : Of course, I'm precisely referring to the kinds of off-topic comments we've mentionned. If it's just a chatty sidenote, please don't create a thread. 

EDIT2. Clarification (my brain's an out-and-out mess sometimes)
- The _us_ in _let us_ was really a _me_. But....
- The _we_ in "t_he reason why we don't start a new thread_" is really a "_we". _It includes myself and all those who reckon they have occasionally replied to an obviously off-topic post.


----------



## liulia

. said:


> It is no fun watching two old hard noses go toe to toe in a room full of civilised people.
> 
> .,,



Come to think of it ... I now remember a couple of confrontations I ran into  that reminded me of a Dr. Seuss book - what WAS the title??? - and I really wished those foreros would go play somewhere else!

Ok - I am now definitely on the side of law and order - if only in regard to responding to off-topic posts - and I promise to be very good about this in future!


----------



## LV4-26

*On*-topic remark. 
I didn't fully answer .,,'s post # 32.
If I had, most of my post would have been off-topic.
Instead, I should have started a handful of new threads like these : 

- The use of the 1st person plural in the place of the 1st person singular --> done (in EO).
- The meaning we each assign to the words _pharisaic_ or _hypocritical --> _I wouldn't know where to start it really and few people would really be interested in it.
- Wouldn't it be pharisaic (hence, absurd, in this case) from someone (say, LV4-26) to claim that someone else is being pharisaic? 

_- _Related : problems resulting from transcultural/translinguistic communication
- Do we always answer the actual questions? i.e. don't we sometimes answer questions which are not exactly those that have been asked?
- Are there questions which are more likely (though not necessarly meant) to encourage that?
- Is it for us to hazard guesses regarding other people's motives for doing or not doing things?  --> I think I partially dealt with that one.... 

Most of which I didn't think would deserve a thread for themselves, but most of which I didn't deal with here lest I might be off-topic. One day, maybe, when the opportunity presents itself...there's no emergency...


----------



## geve

I wholeheartedly agree with the alienmod's post above.


. said:


> Why do some folks insist on replying to obviously off topic posts?


Why do you always ask why? It sounds like exasperation more than a question.  Or a metaphysical consideration, and then I wonder: is it really in the scope of these forums?


----------



## .   1

I ask why because I want to know.
If this is irritating or exasperating I am stuck.
I run into the scope of the forum connundrum far more often than is comfortable for me.
You just asked me why.  Are you exasperated or are you asking me a question? 
I had desperately hoped to keep the metaphysical considerations of navels consuming navels out of this thread but it is obviously too invasive. 

.,,


----------



## liulia

Good grief.  What's wrong with taking things at face value?


----------



## geve

. said:


> You just asked me why. Are you exasperated or are you asking me a question?


Both, probably.  But I am full of whys myself, so I can relate to your quest.


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> Both, probably.  But I am full of whys myself, so I can relate to your quest.


I keep getting smacked in the face by the flipping windmill.
Ah well, a bloke gets older and uglier.

I am here to answer questions and ask questions and somehow in the convoluted process try to figure out why I am human.

.,,


----------



## geve

. said:


> I keep getting smacked in the face by the flipping windmill.


Are you calling me a windmill?  

No, no, don't reply; I'm afraid this post is off-topic.


----------



## belén

Thanks to you all for your posts, I think this thread's point has been taken, therefore, I close it now.

Cheers,
Belén


----------

