Another rule of thumb is: can I get the person I am talking with to talk about changing spaces? If not, we are probably in a lot of conflict and shouldn't keep talking.
"Watch cc's when replying. Don't continue to include people if the messages have become a 2-way conversation."
Also:
"If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to the list or the group. If you are debating a point on which the group might have some interest, you may summarize for them later."
I was thinking in particular of shared spaces like mailing lists, forums, wiki pages, or chat rooms. Where two people talking a lot crowds out other people. I wish I'd said, "In a conversation in a shared online space, ..."
I was thinking of ways to move things out of the shared space; less about direct messages. I wish I'd said, "...a more private conversation" or "...a 1-on-1 conversation"
@evan ooooh I for some reason thought the poll meant on here specifically and so I was very confused because it is very common to have long interesting conversations in reply threads here
@evan I assumed that “public conversation” meant services such as this one, if not exclusively, then in first position. Clearly that was a misinterpretation. But it points to the fact that there is no one standard, acceptable practice is inherently tied to the particular medium in which the discussion takes place.
@evan would this be more like removing people who are not participating from the @ mentions than taking the chat private? My threshold for that is a lot lower.
@evan I almost wish Mastodon and other social software had this as a built in “hey, you’ve been back-and-forthing with a specific person but CC'ing heaps of others, maybe you should just not include them?” feature.
Very often on my moderation posts I get people going off on their on topics, and I get alllll the notifications for that and it's exhausting.
@evan Not a number, but: if someone else joining the conversation would be unwanted/intrusive. Keeping a conversation public usually means other people are invited to join it.
@evan if the conversation stays on topic, eg started chatting about operating system issues, then stay public.
If it branches into "hey Dave, not seen you in ages, how's the kids" then take it to a new thread or private.
@brion a more common process in wiki world is to create a sub-page of a talk page. Like, this conversation has gotten so big, we need to move it to its own space to leave room for everything else.
@evan
a contextual no limit! some conversations are really good to be had publicly, even if just between two people - I have learned a lot from two domain experts talking about something I'm interested in, if they're comfortable/it makes sense to have gawking onlookers
@evan great question! I've wondered this myself. Various thoughts:
it depends on both the medium, and how relevant the discussion stays to the original thread.
when it gets personal (including "I'm the smartest" chest-bumping threads) I take it to DMs or just stop participating.
as a reader, I often enjoy back-and-forth discussions between two other people, even when I don't favorite any posts (like if I'm still undecided on an issue but value their possibly opposing ideas). I don't mind muting conversations when it's too much, if it's possible to mute conversations.
a compromise solution is just to remove @ mentions of everyone except the immediate replier. This way, those people aren't bugged with notifications, yet the conversation is still public for those who are interested.
These aren't strong opinions, though, and I'm happy to follow any relevant community guidelines wherever I am.
@evan If you're OP or talking to OP, as many as you want. If it's 2 commenters probably 3 deep w/o any acknowledgement from OP (like/comment) is time to move on, esp if it's gotten off topic.
@evan this poll is missing a "never" option. I don't consider it appropriate to take a public conversation private unless there's some information which cannot be shared in public necessary to continue the conversation. In practice, this does not occur because the conversation ends at that point.
@evan It's not about the number of replies. Is it on topic? Stay on thread. Is it reeally far on a tangent? Create a new thread.
Going private? I'm here to have public conversations. Going private would be for if someone needs a stern talking to and you don't want to shame them in public, or if the conversation becomes too personal to have in the open.
The truth I pull from this is that whatever people "should" do, you can be certain that plenty won't do that. They'll do whatever the "wrong" thing is.. most of the time.
I get the idea that culture and norms are good. But the past few years have demonstrated that they cannot be relied on -- especially in terms of a well-run technology stack.
@evan by default conversations between individuals, unless they’re designed from the outset to be public (like an open question that one person answers) feel like a phone call. Shouting on speaker in a public space feels like noise pollution.
Conversations with multiple people are pretty much public by nature.
By the time I get to my second reply I am very much wondering “should this be taken off-line?”. This being a poll is, of course, is public and exempted ;)
@sarajw two people at your table of five, who are having a conversation, and don't do anything to include you or others, or check to see if you're interested in listening?
You wouldn't start another conversation among the other three?
@evan are we discussing two people just @-ing eachother here on Mastodon, or also including a string of other mentions of people who haven't responded in ages? As I feel the latter is closer to the example you give of people on a table together.
If two people are having a conversation in public that's totally fine to me tbh? Maybe they keep it in public because they welcome input, or because it feels a bit too weirdly private to make them into direct messages?
@evan also... It's totally okay for two people in a social group to be in a slightly separate conversation. Often in pubs or at dinner parties that's what happens anyway, people sort of pair off into mini-chats.
It can be annoying to be third-wheeled, but normally this stuff shakes out. People move seats, or visit the restroom, and by the time they come back the dynamic or topics of conversations have changed.
@evan here on Mastodon... Turn off replies for a bit if it bugs you, I guess. I do that sometimes. But I also sometimes butt in on a two person thread on public if I think I can join in :)
@evan sounds like we're in agreement then, and it wasn't clear to me in what arena we were talking about.
Yes, if your two-person conversation is pinging a bunch of people that aren't participating, you should remove whatever mechanism it is that keeps pinging all the others.
Otherwise, chat/debate away to your heart's content tbh.
On here I only go private if I'm say showing a photo that includes my family, or wanting to say something to them that might be a sensitive topic to someone else.
@evan IMO, the number of replies is irrelevant. The conversation should be made private if/when the content becomes too sensitive to share publicly, and unlisted/soft-private when it becomes irrelevant to anyone outside of the conversation.
@hazelnoot so, someone in your replies starts a conversation with someone else, and they go 10 posts deep only talking to each other, and you're like, thanks folks, please keep cc'ing me and everyone else in the thread?
@evan
My vote is 5 or more, but it really depends on the topic and if people seem interested in participating (ex. Fav or RT replies) some very interesting conversation can expand for many replies in backs and forwards and going private could mean that it doesn't get shared.
Otherwise if the topic gets personal, including personal experiences or asking for a pause (totally valid) it could go into private very quickly.
@evan yeah, if no one else is participating I would say yes to 2 or 3 replies then go private.
It's rare tho, people like to interject and talk their views here, it's very nice to see.
@evan I'm not very experienced on the ambiance for every case.
I guess that on mailing lists people are discussing some specific topic, not going at each other without a defined argument counter-argument.
@g really? There's no point where you'd say, hey, we're taking up a lot of mental bandwidth in this chat room/mailing list/social network group, nobody else is interested, and maybe we should make room for other conversations?
@evan If there’s threads, then it isn’t taking bandwidth from innocent bystanders 😂
For example a slack thread won’t notify people who didn’t talk in the thread, people can unsubscribe for notifications even if they did participate, and everyone else in the channel won’t notice anything unless they dig in the thread
Add comment