"On the flip side" thread tangents

[Rageaholic]

Say I start a thread about how much grammer nazis piss me off. Even if I make it clear that I am talking about those who point out minor mistakes in an otherwise readable post, someone is still going to bring up those who use n3t sp33k and how unreadable they are. That's not what bothers me (much). What bothers me is when the whole thread turns into a discussion about those who can't spell, the exact opposite of what the OP was about!

I mean that should be expected for actual debate topics, but when it's just a "thing I hate" or some other rant, it's discouraging. It would be like posting a rant in CS about a sucky customer only to have it turn into a discussion about how sucky some cashiers are. It defeats the purpose of the OP. Am I guilty of this? Probably, and it's really not that big of a deal, but it does bug me.

[Boozy]

We see a lot of that here, but that's not surprising. We are a group of people who like to turn things into a debate.

It drives me nuts on CS, though. There's always one or two "nitpickers" who can find an excuse for any behaviour. And if they can't, they just change the subject into something they can.

[blas87]

It's a tough one for me, because I'm not sure if I hate the anecdotal "flip side" arguments or the thread-jacking worse.

I posted a thread about a coworker I absolutely hate and how he just about got himself fired (because he overslept) and now that thread is multiple pages long about stupid alarm clocks.

[HYHYBT]

Why do you hate it so much? Specifically, why make up loaded, suggestive-of-malice-and-violence terms like "thread-jacking" to describe the normal progress of a conversation?

What is wrong (absolutely nothing, that's what) with, when one thing is pointed out as being sucky, mentioning that the opposite is sucky too?

I'll tell you one thing I hate: people who decide that just because they *start* a conversation, they get to decide how it is allowed to progress.

[Rageaholic]

What is wrong (absolutely nothing, that's what) with, when one thing is pointed out as being sucky, mentioning that the opposite is sucky too?

On it's own, not a whole lot, though for too often it's pointing out the obvious. BUT when a thread raving against grammer nazis turns into a thread raving against those who can't spell, it defeats the purpose of the thread.

To use a CS example, let's say a cashier was sick of customers rushing them. Maybe they had a day where all they got was crap for being too "slow" and they had to let off steam so they start a thread on it. It must suck for the OP to come back to the thread later only to see it turn into a discussion bashing some cashiers for being too slow. It's like they continue to get the same crap even off the clock, on a site meant to support those in the service industry no less! And yes, that would be annoying in real life too.

If someone wants to discuss annoying cashiers, they can start their own thread.

[blas87]

HYHYBT, you are quite entitled to that opinion, however, the basis of CS is not that since you posted a thread, you are completely in the right and it has to go the way you want it, but it's been made an official rule to not "fail to see the suck" and while it's not against the rules (AFAIK) to offer anecdotal evidence of the flip side of the coin or to play the devil's advocate, it's not considered the most polite of things.

This is the debate site. That is the vent site. I have had a hard time accepting that this site is not for venting, as much as I'd love a section to vent about stuff that isn't quite appropriate for CS, but that's how it goes. It's common courtesy to fellow posters to not nitpick their posts to death and question every point of their thread and not to just interpret it any old way and then go flying off the handle. Threads can easily go downhill and members can get mad at one another and mud can fly when someone just wanted to vent, and a whole herd of cattle had to come along and fail to see the suck or post all kinds of situations (and even *groan* armchair "evidence") as to why someone would behave that way or do something like that. It gets extremely annoying and it makes the atmosphere of the forum dirty.

To an extent, I wish there were a little tougher rules around here, because I am more than a little sick and tired of people reading something selectively or interpreting a post wrong, then flying off the handle (like a while back in a pot thread I was accused by several members for calling everyone who smokes pot a loser, which I NEVER said, but then it was argued back that I had insinuated it, so they still insisted it stuck that I did say it) and on BOTH sites people do not freaking read the post correctly (sometimes it will be a story from years ago or it didn't happen to you) and every reply is "Go to HR NOW!" or "Labor Board!" or "If I were you I would do this!" or on here, people don't read the entire point of the thread (like my smoke-free workplace thread, where people were just simply not getting the hint that this was imminent and there was no arguing about it to the higher ups, they would NOT meet us halfway or allow smoking in other areas, I meant what I said, no exaggerations, that there is going to be NO MORE smoking at work. It was for venting or debating smoke free workplaces, but not for advice on how to get around it or argue with the higher ups because it was not worth fighting over). Ok, I guess you can't force people to learn how to read or thoroughly read, but it would be more polite.

[Boozy]

I'll tell you one thing I hate: people who decide that just because they *start* a conversation, they get to decide how it is allowed to progress.

I don't think the original poster has the power to decide how a thread progresses, and I've spoken to people about that before.

BUT --

I do think it's annoying when I log in to a website called "Customers Suck", start a thread about why my customers suck, expecting shared tales of customers sucking, and get instead.....

...three pages of Star Trek quotes.

Yes, it's happened. Yes, I find it irritating. It doesn't mean that I dislike the people who derailed the thread, nor do I think they've necessarily done anything wrong. I'm just...annoyed.

[Rageaholic]

Yes, it's happened. Yes, I find it irritating. It doesn't mean that I dislike the people who derailed the thread, nor do I think they've necessarily done anything wrong. I'm just...annoyed.

Yeah same with me, I can't hate on those just for taking a thread in a different direction. I believe they have the right to discuss what they want, but it doesn't mean I don't get disappointed or frustrated with the results.

Also to make something clear, I don't think all thread tangents are bad. It's like in real life, when you start talking about one thing which leads into another topic. But sometimes, a good discussion can disappear and turn into nonsense. Or in this case, the exact opposite of the original issue.

[HYHYBT]

On it's own, not a whole lot, though for too often it's pointing out the obvious. BUT when a thread raving against grammer nazis turns into a thread raving against those who can't spell, it defeats the purpose of the thread.

No, it doesn't. Saying, for instance, that it's annoying trying to read posts that didn't even have an attempt at reasonable spelling, etc. is not in any way contrary to saying that it's annoying when someone nitpicks occasional, tiny errors (such as your "grammer." It's the same topic, even, in essence.

To use a CS example, let's say a cashier was sick of customers rushing them. Maybe they had a day where all they got was crap for being too "slow" and they had to let off steam so they start a thread on it. It must suck for the OP to come back to the thread later only to see it turn into a discussion bashing some cashiers for being too slow.

They are wrong to feel bad about that, and no, it's NOT the same as attacking them at home or whatever. Depending on exactly what is said and how, of course, but "some cashiers really are slow for no good reason" is NOT claiming, unless it specifically says so, that the OP is one of them. More generally, saying "well, I've done that, but in that case there was a good reason" is NOT the same as saying the OP was wrong to complain. If you CHOOSE to take it as such anyway, that's on you. The opposite side of a coin is the same coin, and therefore OUGHT, logically, to be appropriate in the same thread.

...but it's been made an official rule to not "fail to see the suck"...

PLEASE, not that again! It's still a stupid rule, it always has and always will BE a stupid rule (so long as just asking for clarification without psychically already knowing what that will be counts as a rule violation, at least)... but it's there. Fine. This is not about that, and there is nothing in what I said that has anything to do with "failing to see the suck."

To an extent, I wish there were a little tougher rules around here, because I am more than a little sick and tired of people reading something selectively or interpreting a post wrong ... on BOTH sites people do not freaking read the post correctly...

It certainly can be frustrating, being misunderstood. But what's the point of getting *angry* over it? Everyone does it now and then; you simply explain where the misunderstanding lies and go on from there. Even the hint that there might ought to be a rule against misreading or misunderstanding a post...

As for the pages of quotes or whatever... well, if that's all there is, that means that nobody has chosen to add anything else along the lines of the original topic. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing so except their own decision not to. The first such diversionary post in a thread does not in any way at all stop the next person reading it from responding instead to the main topic. Nor does the second, third, etc. The ONLY reason nobody is talking about the main point is that everybody individually chooses not to. Which pretty much means the thread would simply be dead anyway. If a thread that had previously been interesting devolves into one which is not, and it becomes obvious that it's not going to switch back, why not simply stop reading it? You get the exact same benefit that way that you would if it were either locked or forced to be about only that which no one still wants to post about (presumably, at least, as there is, again, NOTHING stopping them from doing so) and those who are enjoying the new direction can continue enjoying it. Win-win!

[Rageaholic]

They are wrong to feel bad about that, and no, it's NOT the same as attacking them at home or whatever. Depending on exactly what is said and how, of course, but "some cashiers really are slow for no good reason" is NOT claiming, unless it specifically says so, that the OP is one of them. More generally, saying "well, I've done that, but in that case there was a good reason" is NOT the same as saying the OP was wrong to complain. If you CHOOSE to take it as such anyway, that's on you. The opposite side of a coin is the same coin, and therefore OUGHT, logically, to be appropriate in the same thread.

I never said it was attacking anyone. I don't even think merely pointing out that there are bad cashiers on that thread would be bad. My annoyance doesn't come from one or two comments "on the flip side". My annoyance comes from a whole thread being taken over by the flip side. In the cashier example, it would be using the thread ranting about customers hating on cashiers to hate on cashiers and have it take over the discussion on SCs.

Like I said, I don't see it as THAT big of a deal, so it's not like I'd want a rule forbidding it, it's just annoying. Especially if you're venting about people giving you a hard time about something. The last thing you'd want is to hear more bitching about that very thing you've been given crap for. In debates, fine, but not every thread is a debate.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Also, in the past, I have tried to bring a thread back to the original premis and my post has been ignored. Most of these people don't care a toss about what the OP might think, they just want a place to post their irrelevant nonsense and they're too bone idle to make a thread to do it in.

What bugs me, besides nitpicking which I have already mentioned, is people who if I venture an opinion on something that's American, immediately bitch back with, "Well, your opinion is worthless on this subject cuz you're English". Excuse me? Topics like education, healthcare, work are interchangable. I can offer a opinion; you don't have to agree with anything that I say, but you can at least respect it.

This is not just here but other places too. I'm sure there must be people from other countries who snap like that, but I've only ever experienced it from Americans.

[blas87]

Actually Lace, once I recounted a story from when I worked at the gas station (in 2005 when gas soared to $3 a gallon) and someone obviously not from America bashed me for thinking that was expensive. Nevermind that I had written it was during Hurricane Katrina, and common sense would say that $3 a gallon was a LOT for Americans at the time.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Heh, they should head over here if they want to see expensive petrol. Especially since VAT just went up. O_o

I've mentioned this before, but it really annoys me when people start saying, "Well, if you had pay at the pump, then you wouldn't get driveouts", cuz it's as tho the thief is being excused for their criminal behaviour and the blame put on the victim, ie the petrol station. If I wrote about being mugged, I doubt there'd be many people save the obvious trolls who'd say something similar.

[blas87]

You've written of that before and I cannot blame you one bit. There is no reason to go on a tangent about pay at the pump when someone had a bad day and wanted to vent about thieves who drive off without paying for gas.