I am going to re-ask a question I posed a few pages back since I didn't see any feedback. Hopefully I'll be more coherent or you all will unhide it
so I get some responses.
There was mention of not derailing threads being a potential part of the guidelines. I can see that working one of two ways and want to know what is being suggested.
Way #1:
Amy (made up name) posts a thread about her ds' WISC scores and asks for feedback. Mary (another made up name) chimes in to list her dd's WISC scores and also asks for what she should do.
Typically referred to "hijacking"
Way #2:
Amy posts a thread about her ds' WISC scores and asks for feedback. People give her the feedback she requests and it brings up comments about kids with low WMI. The conversation morphs into a discussion of what the WMI on the WISC is actually measuring and then to a discussion of grade acceleration and 504 plans (Amy isn't thinking of grade skipping her kid) and whether a child who needs significant accommodations to perform at a higher grade should skip and....
Do you all want to actively limit the second type of diversion or just the first or neither or both?
Hi Cricket2,
I think that neither of those 2 examples is part of the problem, and would reserve threadjacking as an expression where the 'tone' of the thread changes from an 'I don't know what my child needs' tone to a 'let's debate the pros and cons of X parenting ideal.' I think this needs to be stated better than I'm stating it, but basically I sure would prefer if new folks started their own thread, because sometimes I get confused and misanswer, but I dont' think it's worth making it a rule.
I think that the longer the thread goes on the harder it is for me to muster the enthusiasm to go back and read it closely.
So I would encourage folks to start new thread often -and it's fine to leave a pointer post to the new thread. But what I am trying to say is that the minute someone's personal vulnerability gets turned into a 'let's spar' sort of debate over parenting approaches, I'm going to feel uncomfortable in a way that starting a side thread would totally avoid. If folks want to talk about 'Does family bed create cranky children?' that's fine, but if Mary asks for help with her cranky 3 year old, and Amy suggest the family bed, and Beverly starts attacking the very idea of family beds and we take of on that topic, I think we've left Mary high and dry, yes?
Can anyone turn this mess of words into a short phrase or catchword? I'd sure appreciate it.
Please don't think I'm ignoring you Cricket2 - we need you! A soft gentle meandering into related topics is surely not a problem when you do it, but mabye we need to be cleaner about it because some of us aren't as good at self-monitoring when the focus is still on the OP and when it's wandered onto one of our personal hot-buttons and we are purely venting our general frustration? Perfectionism doesn't disapear when we reach adulthood, and can be turned outward as well as inward. I am proposing that after we type a post, we re-read it and say to ourselves "Could the OP take this the wrong way?" and "Have I just been reminded of an important but sidetracking discussion that I've been waiting all my life to have - maybe I'll start a new thread!" Then it's easy enough to cut/paste into a new topic. ((Ok, the waiting for anyone to answer isn't so much fun!))
I've been waiting my whole life to have almost all of these conversations!
Yippee!
Grinity
