What makes a thread-killer?

[Maddy]

I've been thinking about PointedStick's semi-farewell post and wondering if it's not so much the level of rancor and lack of civility that's at issue (I actually perceive very little of that on this board), but rather the absence of high-quality, well-considered posts that promote, rather than quelch, invigorating discussion. I think it's a worthwhile inquiry because no level of moderation or banning can offer a cure for the latter.

PS's post brought to mind the term "thread killer," which I've heard at times on other discussion boards, but like most modern, technology-centered expressions, I'm not really sure what that means. (Ditto for the term "troll," but we'll reserve that discussion for another day.) Anyway, this brought me to consider the question of what particular features in a post make it a "thread killer" and, conversely, what particular attributes of a post encourage and foster vibrant discussion.

In this regard, perhaps I'm among the worst of offenders. These days I have neither the time nor the energy to think through issues like I did in my coffee house days, and having come out of an occupation in which I was required to devote every waking minute to the most rigorous type of critical thinking, I'm kind of enjoying not having to think that hard. Not having the time or the mental energy to do more than post snippets of half-baked ideas is probably not the most grievous of on-line sins, but it doesn't do much to engender vibrant discussion or the exchange of novel and interesting ideas.

PS' posts from the past always seemed to me to serve as a model for what makes for a great discussion board--with their broad, philosophical orientation, their intellectual honesty, their penchant for critical self-examination, and their tendency to examine in an unbiased fashion all the possible angles of an issue. I'd suggest that one of the reasons PS senses that this board is languishing is that his own posts (especially those starting new threads) have become increasingly infrequent. Ditto with MG's more in-depth posts relating to health and supplements. Those involved a very different sort of discussion, but likewise generated a great deal of interest and participation.

I think there's a certain talent in generating discussions and keeping them going, and I've never given much thought to the kinds of behaviors that promote them, or the kinds of behaviors that shut them down. Is the real culprit rancor and highly charged emotions, or even that occasional personal attack? Or is it something else?

[Mountaineer]

I've been thinking about PointedStick's semi-farewell post and wondering if it's not so much the level of rancor and lack of civility that's at issue (I actually perceive very little of that on this board), but rather the absence of high-quality, well-considered posts that promote, rather than quelch, invigorating discussion. I think it's a worthwhile inquiry because no level of moderation or banning can offer a cure for the latter.

PS's post brought to mind the term "thread killer," which I've heard at times on other discussion boards, but like most modern, technology-centered expressions, I'm not really sure what that means. (Ditto for the term "troll," but we'll reserve that discussion for another day.) Anyway, this brought me to consider the question of what particular features in a post make it a "thread killer" and, conversely, what particular attributes of a post encourage and foster vibrant discussion.

In this regard, perhaps I'm among the worst of offenders. These days I have neither the time nor the energy to think through issues like I did in my coffee house days, and having come out of an occupation in which I was required to devote every waking minute to the most rigorous type of critical thinking, I'm kind of enjoying not having to think that hard. Not having the time or the mental energy to do more than post snippets of half-baked ideas is probably not the most grievous of on-line sins, but it doesn't do much to engender vibrant discussion or the exchange of novel and interesting ideas.

PS' posts from the past always seemed to me to serve as a model for what makes for a great discussion board--with their broad, philosophical orientation, their intellectual honesty, their penchant for critical self-examination, and their tendency to examine in an unbiased fashion all the possible angles of an issue. I'd suggest that one of the reasons PS senses that this board is languishing is that his own posts (especially those starting new threads) have become increasingly infrequent. Ditto with MG's more in-depth posts relating to health and supplements. Those involved a very different sort of discussion, but likewise generated a great deal of interest and participation.

I think there's a certain talent in generating discussions and keeping them going, and I've never given much thought to the kinds of behaviors that promote them, or the kinds of behaviors that shut them down. Is the real culprit rancor and highly charged emotions, or even that occasional personal attack? Or is it something else?

I'm probably stepping in it, but I think a contributing factor is whether the reader is "me focused, i.e. a taker" or "others focused, i.e. a giver". I think that is much more important that what a given poster says. I'll leave it at that. And for what it's worth, I enjoy your posts, Maddy.

[MWKXJ]

I'm probably stepping in it, but I think a contributing factor is whether the reader is "me focused, i.e. a taker" or "others focused, i.e. a giver". I think that is much more important that what a given poster says. I'll leave it at that. And for what it's worth, I enjoy your posts, Maddy.

"Heart of fool is leaking bucket, that loses all the wisdom it learns. Truths that wisdom will prize and cherish, the profligate hears no less, but hearing despises, and casts them to the winds. Listening to a fool is like journeying with a heavy pack; there is no pleasing the ear, where sense is none. How they hang on the lips of a wise man, the folk assembled, ay, and ponder in their hearts over the word said! A fool takes refuge in wise talk as a man takes shelter in a ruin; learning without sense, that cannot abide scrutiny. To the fool instruction seems but a fetter to clog him, gyves that cramp his wrist. A fool laughs loud; smiling, the wise compress their lips. Precious as an ornament of gold, close fitting as a bracelet to the right arm, is instruction to a wise man. Folly sets foot over every threshold, where the experienced mind stands, as in a royal presence, abashed; folly peeps in at windows, where experience waits patiently without; listens thoughtlessly behind open doors, where prudence hangs back for very shame. Fools break out into rash utterance, where the prudent are at paints to weigh their words; with the one, to think is to speak, with the other, to speak is to think."

Ecclesiasticus 21:17-29