Here’s a thought: In a forum which prefers narrow focus, a small collective which wishes to indulge in broad discursive brainstorms could choose to convene a group PM conversation. If and when they come up with conclusions or proposals, each of those single ideas could be posted as a single-point new topic. Which could then be elaborated on in public.
4개의 좋아요
I think that works but has one drawback.
As I understand it a PM has to have individuals added to it whereas a group or public thread allows individuals to add themselves?
So maybe it’s the best viable sub-optimal answer at present?
That seems to be basically true, with the group feature I haven’t seen if there are specific talk pages for those or the system just starts a new pm topic if someome writes a message addressed to a group (such as the @ team discourse group)
2개의 좋아요
It seems worth a try. Not entirely unlike an assembly convening a committee to write a report.
In the case of PMs on discourse, I might suggest firstly sending one to one invitations. If an invitation is accepted, that person can be included in the PM discussion when it is created. I think there’s a limit to the number of people on a PM conversation.
3개의 좋아요
For this we would need to extend the current pm system to be more robust. One method would be to enable dm tagging. However still not very good for those types of broader conversations.
Now a special category using Topic mod plugin could be useful in part to that end to explore with a more general say tl3 category with reduced need to moderate unless there are problems.
ie
- Flagged posts
- snipes re site policies or of course legal misuse of the site.
1개의 좋아요
This can be a topic itself to focus on in an appropriate topic category or dm.
Sometimes when a preferred option is unavailable we need to explore other control methodes we can use client side to achieve a desired end point .
1개의 좋아요
Let’s step back from diverging back to this. The main complaint is that the topic is not focused enough for our host to allow certain level of broad potentially pi level topics. For example we now know one of your actual maun focus is how discourse could be used for a medical forum.
But lets get back to this topic’s purpose being philosophies on how to manage topics with potential to have exploding sub topics.
1개의 좋아요
저는 위에서 하나의 제안을 했고, Contribute > Site feedback 포럼에서 또 다른 제안을 했습니다.
- 의식적인 관리 선택으로, 새로운 수렴 현상이 자연스럽게 나타나도록 주기적으로 실행하고 샘플링하는 것을 허용합니다. [아기일 소프트웨어 개발 운동에서 대중화되었던 기법, 예를 들어 레트로스펙티브, 백로그 가드닝 등을 활용할 수 있습니다.]
- 테마 및 플러그인 개발자들이 아이디어를 공개된 공간에 올릴 수 있을 정도로 발전시킬 수 있는 공간을 만듭니다.
다른 제안들을 듣고 싶습니다.
"허용하지 않는다"는 것과 동일한 제안을 하는 사람들은 "어디가 한계적으로 괜찮은/괜찮지 않은 경계인가"라는 매우 어려운 질문을 직면하게 되며, 그 경계 주변에서 이루어지는 판단이 잘 이루어지고 있는가(무엇이 '잘’이라는 정의인지에 따라)라는 질문도 따라옵니다. (그리고 어쩌면 "그렇게 보이는가"라는 질문도 포함됩니다. 이 모든 것은 어렵고, 감정적으로 부담스럽습니다. '문명’을 모토로 삼고 있을 때 이것이 더욱 필요한 것은 아닌가 하는 생각도 듭니다.)
1개의 좋아요
This is a key important statement here, describing when things have really descended into chaos or unreadable madness no one can understand.
Primary challenge with this kind of a forum platform is that it is by default always online, unless manually shut down or on a set schedule.
What people generally want to talk about can change a lot over the course of a day, week, months seasons and years. Also how a conversation goes is generally completely dependent on who someone is talking to.
Post something on a forum, who will reply? Who is online? No one knows, can only guess based on history of if there are active moderators or members who usually reply to posts within a few days.
2개의 좋아요
This one has 2.9k replies from 22 users
There are others
the thread that was the parent of this one had a post that said “[things are] highly context dependant.” And it’s true here too
1개의 좋아요
Surely you don’t enjoy reading those thousands of posts though. Those are write-only topics.
Has anyone ever temporarily engaged Discourse Restricted Replies (or something like it) to help regain control of a thread that has begun spiraling?
4개의 좋아요
Personally I have them set to ignore but plainly others like them
I dunno if the TL4s know about restrict replies - prolly only 1 & I’d even doubt that & the user culture would prolly not countenance it’s use
The point was no sweeping statement will be correct- “all generalisations are wrong including this one”
1개의 좋아요
I had that plugin in a support category. So only support members could respond to an Op.
Meant to reply to @mbauman
2개의 좋아요
Yeah, I was pondering (ab)using that plugin to move a spiraling topic into such a more restricted category. I keep coming back to @simon’s “maximum number” comments and think it’s spot-on:
I think it could make sense to have the concept of a “full room.”
4개의 좋아요
I can definitely agree. While some will have difficulty seeing this.
The more participants in a topic the more likely to have pocket discussions. Though even if not pocket discussions can make following a topic more difficult. Reddit comes to mind with the often noisy topics. Though we could likely have an explosive sub topic discussion of pros & cons of the reddit platform. 
2개의 좋아요