Who owns a thread and diversions

Maybe the posters who feel the threads ought to be strictly adhered to, used to belong to the Beeb boards. Some of those boards could be very strict about adhering to the subject, although I always felt that it was to make policing them easier. They felt they had to maintain their good reputation.

I can't subscribe to the ownership of a thread thing. What's all that about?? A forum is surely a bit like a chat between friends (without the reality of a glass of wine and some nibbles) When a subject is raised, such as the SIL/DIL from hell someone in the group, be it virtual, or in reality, will inevitably turn the conversation (thread) to their own situation. I suppose what probably irritates me most is those posters who feel they have answer every posting even when they admit they haven't anything to offer to the OP, or ..even worse, feel the need to put in their own two-penn'uth of complete off-track rubbish. just to prove they're forum savvy. GN is not alone in this...... every forum has it's village idiots.... as in real life.

I find it hard to believe this thread has reached its third page when most of us seem to have a pretty good understanding of how threads operate on GN.
If there is nothing interesting to discuss, is it not a dreadful waste of time to discuss nothing?

Well, Alea, after reading it all, I didn't want to be the first to say it, but......

It is obvious that a number do not, myself included. And that includes longstanding regular posters.

Unless some posters were trying it on of course.

And don't conversations often ramble along with people repeating themselves? Where's the problem?

No problem now FarNoth. None at all.

Well I for one think this is a thread about nothing at all. It reminds me of those newspaper articles which start off with a ridiculous question (" Was the Queen Mum a closet werewolf?") and then -- waste-- spend 28 column inches refuting the question, basically just saying "No!"

The question in the OP has been answered many times over. GN guidelines are pretty clear and do not to need be cut and dried, t s crossed, i s dotted , as we can usually exercise a modicum of common sense.
If you were really in doubt, soontobe why did you just not contact HQ and ask them ? Or were you hoping to prompt disagreement?
But I fear rambling doesn't come close in this case.

True, Alea, send for Rambling Sid Rumpo.

They gave me an answer 4 months ago, which contradicts this thread.

Since they havent come on, I assume that now that posters are ok with diversions, that it is ok at gransnet HQ too.

It would have been a bit rude of me to ask them if they had changed their mind from 4 months ago.

What did you make of the thread yesterday that you and I were both on, where the op came back about 5 days later and said she wasnt going to post any further on her thread because posters had made a laughing stock of it.

Was she correct?
I felt a bit sorry for her, but could see why it happened.

Actually, if we all stop talking on here, the thread will end.

Shouldn't really discuss another thread, but I think she probably got her just deserts
I am concerned that you feel GNHQ have told you otherwise, as I have scoured Netiquette and can find nothing to suggest that is part of GN philosophy. I did see a reference to Religion and Spirituality which may have been relevant at the time, but can't really comment on a private email!

You said it. ( 17.52)

If you start a thread you have to understand that you have no control and it might go off in ways that are quite upsetting to you.
It doesn't really happen here, but Mumsnet can be very tough and there are naive people who post on AIBU (who clearly think they are not and expect agreement) who get torn to shreds. Many a time they wish they could delete because it wasn't the thread they envisaged.

No, we shouldn't discuss another thread.....but here goes anyway
The poster who turned up again days later moaning her thread had raised a few jokes was ridiculous - a shame she was upset, but people had made sensible and supportive suggestions, to which she had not responded. It was not surprising that there were some humorous posts afterwards.

I don't understand posters who come onto a thread to say they find it stupid/pointless/boring/not worth continuing etc etc....

Why not just ignore it, leaving the boring, pointless people to it, and scamper off to something more interesting?

I have noticed that some of the time, if a thread is getting a bit fraught people will start to provide some humour in an attempt to calm things down. Sometimes that isn't the case and the humour is cruel and malicious but the former example is a reflection on how women react 'in the real world' as we are born pacifiers.

I've always assumed that threads are pretty much organic-just like conversation-unless someone requires a specific answer to a very specific question. You don't conduct a conversation by means of set responses and if things veer off too far there's usually someone who pulls it back in. STB- are you more comfortable in a structured environment??