Life In 19x19
http://prod.lifein19x19.com/

"Back Seat Threading"
http://prod.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9480		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  moyoaji [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:  "Back Seat Threading"
I'm noticing a behavior recently where users will change the purpose of a thread without even attempting to engage in the thread's topic. It is not quite blatant hijacking of a thread - where the topic shifts to something unrelated. Instead, it is more like having a back-seat driver that says "I know you wanted to have a thread about this, but I think it would be better to talk about this aspect of what you said."

I will not point fingers. I will not name names or give examples of threads. However, I will say that I find this behavior to be inappropriate and I think most people know what I am talking about. This is wrong in my mind. You shouldn't start a secondary discussion in another user's thread. That is why you can create new threads and the OP's question or topic should be the primary focus of the thread they created. If someone wants to have a discussion about a particular section of the game and you want to talk about something else related to that part of the game then you have two options.

1. Make your own thread about this topic
2. Engage in the discussion on the topic and bring in the point you wanted to make, but have it be relevant.

To get a picture of what I mean, I created an example thread:
CommonUser wrote:
Common Double-Sente Endgame Move
I'm sure everyone has seen this position in a lot of their games and most know that it is referred to as double sente. 'a' is sente for black and 'b' is sente for white.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ ..XO...
$$ ..XO...
$$ ..ba...
$$ ------[/go]

What I have been wondering about is when this move is truly sente and when it is not. Responding locally is obviously pretty big, but it seems like the follow up move value is only about the value of a monkey jump.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ :w2: tenuki
$$ ..XO...
$$ ..XO...
$$ ...1.3.
$$ ------[/go]

So just like how you don't need to jump to defend the monkey jump I don't see why you need to automatically assume you should defend against :b1:. But still I respond to this all the time and I see a lot of other players defend this right away, even in the early middle game or the opening, when they otherwise wouldn't defend the monkey jump.

So what I'm wondering is, when should :b1: be responded to and when should it be ignored? Clearly :b1: is big, but you don't see pros playing this until yose starts.

EarlyYosePlayer wrote:
Yeah, I struggle with this a lot. I often find myself responding to these types of moves (and monkey jump threats too) when there is still a lot of the board open. I think my problem is that I don't read to see how I can respond so I just respond now so I don't have to put in the work later. I think reading for this would be really important. In a close game you should probably take the time to evaluate the position and try to judge if you have a bigger move elsewhere (and I should too ;)).

BackSeatThreader wrote:
This move is not the same value as a monkey jump. Because the stone is already connected by a first line "tiger's mouth" it is actually harder to stop. Surrounding stones also really matter when it comes to determining the value of this move, but to just say that it's the same as a monkey jump isn't accurate. I couldn't find an exact value on Sensei's for this follow up, but I'm sure it's better than a monkey jump - the question is, by how much?


The problem with this is that the statement in the thread about monkey jumps has little to do with what the user wants to know. They want to know when to respond to or ignore a first line move. They know that they can ignore monkey jump threats and are making a comparison. However, BackSeatThreader has decided that a discussion on the value of this move is more important than knowing when to respond to it. Now, that's not totally off-base. Knowing a move's value can help determine when to respond, but it is also not what the original poster wanted. This sort of thing happens and then the discussion moves to how many points the play is worth and the original question is never actually answered or brought up again. However, the thread was not "hijacked" because the topic is still related - in fact, the OP even talked about point values in his first post!

Some may even argue that EarlyYosePlayer is contributing less to this thread. All she said was "You should read" and that's advice people get all the time. However, she attempted to directly address the purpose of the thread. She did not ignore the question asked. She is participating in the discussion that CommonUser wanted to have.

Instead of ignoring CommonUser's question in CommonUser's thread, BackSeatThreader should have started a new thread like:

BackSeatThreader wrote:
Value of the Tiger's Mouth Jump
CommonUser posted about responding to the common first line double sente move and compared the tiger's mouth jump to being about the value of a monkey jump. I was wondering, what is the value of this move? I couldn't find a point value on Sensei's.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ :w2: tenuki
$$ ..XO...
$$ ..XO...
$$ ...1.3.
$$ ------[/go]



This is great. He makes reference to the post that inspired him to start this so others can see the discussion there, and he asks a clear question in his own thread.

Now, if BackSeatThreader genuinely wants to help CommonUser in his quest for the answer to his question, and feels that knowing the point value will do this, then he should not dodge the original question but instead embrace it in his post so that others know what the point of the thread is.

BackSeatThreader wrote:
I think the key to answering the question of "when to respond" is knowing how much this move is actually worth. It may be similar to a monkey jump, but I think it's more valuable - the stone is already connected back by that first line tiger's mouth. Depending how late into the middle game you are it might still be sente. I didn't see anything on Sensei's, but does anyone know the value of this move?

It seems the primary reasons for this are over-eagerness to correct mistakes (which is not a bad thing in-and-of-itself) and a desire to engage in a discussion about what was presented that was not posed as a question or as the topic of discussion (which, again, is not bad).

It is good to want to give knowledge - that is why we are here, to share knowledge - and it is good to be curious about many aspects of the game beyond simply what is discussed - but that is why you can make new threads.

I suppose what I am asking is that we evaluate forum etiquette. Do we value keeping threads about the original post or are we fine with having a thread meander around the topic without hitting it again after the first page? What are the community's thoughts on this behavior? Should users try to avoid "backseat threading" or am I trying to see a problem where there is none?
Author:  daal [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Back Seat Threading"
I don't see this as a problem that needs to be addressed generally. If someone asks a question, gets 10 replies and then the backseat threader moves in, the OP will still have received his 10 answers, and perhaps the diverted discussion is of interest both to him and to others. If this is not the case, then people can just speak up. I've done this in the past when it was important to me that the discussion stay on topic and most of the time people have respected my request. In cases where they didn't, I feel I just have to live with it. Others might have found the diversion more interesting.
Author:  moyoaji [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Back Seat Threading"
daal wrote:
I don't see this as a problem that needs to be addressed generally. If someone asks a question, gets 10 replies and then the backseat threader moves in, the OP will still have received his 10 answers, and perhaps the diverted discussion is of interest both to him and to others. If this is not the case, then people can just speak up. I've done this in the past when it was important to me that the discussion stay on topic and most of the time people have respected my request. In cases where they didn't, I feel I just have to live with it. Others might have found the diversion more interesting.

Well, I don't really see this as a problem when the OP gets 10 replies. It's more a problem when they get just 1 or 2. In some cases it's no reply before the topic is shifted and then it never gets back to it.

You are correct that users can speak up against this. However, I feel the worst time for this to happen is when a new user is making a post. Usually newcomers don't have the social wherewithal to speak up against a longer standing member of the community. I would hate to see a user not return to the forums because they feel their reason for posting the thread was ignored.

I think a discussion evolving on a thread is great. That is what happens to discussions in real life. The problem is when 1-2 posts about the topic are made and then everyone just ignores the OP to talk about someone else's post.

This might just be a pet peeve of mine. If no one else finds this problematic then so be it.
Author:  Boidhre [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Back Seat Threading"
Forums are not blogs, they generally don't have one topic per thread but a cluster of related topics with one usually dominant with little excursions to some related place every so often. Someone who starts a thread does not own the thread or the discussion in it (and yes, this can be *grating*). Sometimes a site has conventions that say otherwise, e.g. here it's considered bad form to screw around in someone's study journal just to name one instance and it's generally not done.

This does need to be controlled to some extent, lest a user turn every thread into one about their hobby horse. But expecting people to just discuss the topic of the first post? Sorry, forums haven't worked like that in the 10 years I spent moderating them and the 15 I spent reading them and posting in them. The thread starter does not own the thread, forums are not blogs, you don't get editorial control over what the rest of the forum does with your thread. Remember, forums aren't just threads filled with individual posts, forums are threads filled with conversations. Sometimes these conversations stray a bit, or a lot, from the topic at hand but this is a core aspect of how forums work. Asides can often be fascinating, informative or unwelcome but really you cannot reasonably ban them without removing a lot of what makes forums enjoyable. The rambling discussion can sometimes be annoying sure, but if you sift through the forum you'll find dozens and dozens of "asides" by users that are very interesting/valuable/whatever.
Author:  Joaz Banbeck [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Back Seat Threading"
moyoaji wrote:
...
This might just be a pet peeve of mine. If no one else finds this problematic then so be it.


Its not just you. I don't like it either.

As a member, I like to be able to read what I thought that I was going to read. If I pick up the Wall Street Journal, I don't want to find articles from the National Enquirer mixed in.

[admin]
As an admin, I'm looking to creating long-term value for this site. I want a go player to be able to search this site a decade from now and find relevant comments. ( If you think that this is overlapping with SL, I agree. I like redundancy. )

When there is a clear demarcation between posts in the thread, and both sub-threads appear to be important subjects, sometimes I will separate them out and start a new thread.
Also, on several occasions, I have privately asked posters to stop highjacking threads and start new ones.

If this is a peeve of yours too, PM me when you see one. If there is a way to cleanly separate two good threads, I'll do it.
[/admin]
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/