Forking Comments - comment 56004 - comment 56023

Seth says ...
You have introduced the concept of a public forum … and for that, this is just about the way i would like to see it work.  yes.

There is another kind of group here and that is the personal group that everyone is issued when they sign on.   In that group the owner must be king … and in complete control of how things get represented there.  If they want to allow others to comment the can, but if those comment distract from the message that they want to project to the world, they must have the ability to fork, or move, or delete them. 

Comments


Seth says
well i do think that the whold thread should be moved … and not just isolated comments.  for example i don’t understand your response to this one … it did not make sense … although i read it several times.  yet when i moved it here,  your response to it is over there.   nor did i have a place to ask for clarification over there. 

so yes i agree (or at least think we may be talking about the same thing) … we move whole thread, not just cherry picked parts of it. 

incidentally the same should go for a fork … one forks an entire thread, and that whole thread ends up in the body of a thought.

Seth says
then too i agree that once an author opens their opus to commentary, they should allow dissent and alternative views. 

but they should not be required to also allow distractions and mocking and hostile commentary.  when the author sees such  malicious intent in a thread, they should be  able to exclude that content from that thread without destroying the flow of the thread by others.   And that on a thread by thread basis.  perhaps the author of the comments  could still see their own pestalence in a way such that they know it is being censored.  

but, omg, that would be  super complicated. 

Si says
Excluding an author on a thread by thread basis is in the rights model. No problem.

The only thing you haven’t caught up with yet is the interaction around deleting something by another. You can’t do it. You can only hide it from others … and you must hide all, not just the parts that you don’t agree with. All or none. The reasons for this are sound and eventually you will catch up with them and see how well the model works in your head … or not, but then you will feel how well it works when it is there and you are using it in real time with your fingers.  

Si says
Not really on a deliberate fork. A fork happens when the reader realizes that they want to respond to a comment in a different context than the rest of the thread or main thought. Thus only that comment should be copied.

The times you pieced together the thought after forking you included pieces from all over, not just the thread the comment was in. There is no practical way to do that automatically other than the way you did it.

Deliberate forking is an intentional thing. Your intentionally wanting to change the context based on that comment.

Seth says
all what … all on a thread … all on a thought … what is the scope?   and what specifically is the difference between hide and delete?

Si says
What you are wanting here is really a move thread feature. That is in the works but requires the prime directive foundation before it can be practically implemented. The fork is a true fork and is most useful as it is now.

Si says
sigh … the answers to ALL those questions are fully covered in yesterday’s conversations, multiple times even. I don’t want to reconstruct it here. Just read yesterday’s news.

Seth says
then too excluding an author before the fact is quite a different thing than excluding their content after the fact.  an author’s forcus starts then gets interrupted … they may want to get it back on track yet still use some content from another, but not all of it.   

you still don’t seem to have gotten this gestalt that an author is thinking here and can take control of the commentary such that they can think it into the direction they want it to go.   

Si says
Yes. I FULLY covered exactly those too in yesterdays conversations. Nevermind. I won’t comment on this again until you catch up.

Seth says
well i find that most of that shit that is happening between you and mark is not what we should be designing dialogu around.  
 

Seth says
Conversation forked to thought 21276

Si says
See, from my perspective, you were so caught up in the feelings surrounding your perceived idea that your ability to curate your own stuff was being unrightously prevented by me, that you hardly read, or digested, the rest of the things I said as the model evolved and finally snapped-in. Most of my commentary just wizzed right by you … but it’s still there to be read … and it addresses ALL of your concerns and ends in a final, fully snapped-in and complete model, that you will be happy with when you experience it complete, either in your head, or through your fingers, which ever comes first.  

Si says
It is not. In fact, I have rarely forked on Mark’s stuff. Most of my forking has been simply to switch context in our technical dialogs … and the same rules, reasons, and needs apply.

Si says
I personally think you are still cycling on your feeling of not being heard and me “doing” something to you than you are going forward with and understanding the final model. When you let go of all that self-rightous indignation, the rest will be able to fill in and be exactly what you asked for with your rocket of desire sent to the multiverse. That’s LOA 101 (you have to let go of the oars and the river will carry you to where you wanted to go. Stop paddling up stream where there only exists that which you don’t want).  

Seth says
you can even look at this dialog we are having right now as an example of two people not being able to focus together in a useful way. 

one way for you to get this back together is to go out and come in again … put your entire design in one thought.   instead of expecting me to untangel it and complaining when i run into one of your dangeling got-chas.

Si says
Poppycock. Just stop doing that thing your doing. It is all there and will all be fine.  

Seth says
then too you are being tone deaf to my concerns.  alternatively you could start listening to them and answering them rather then when i bring them up, waving at something off the page.

Seth says
Conversation forked to thought 21277

Si says
All your concerns were fully considered and addressed in yesterdays dialogs. You are way more focused on how I am communicating to you than the content of the communication. You feel justified in your righteousness, and that’s all you are cycling on right now … round and round.  

Seth says
notwistanding that you started this rwg here .

anyway where is this place where everything is addressed? 

Si says
If you read yesterdays news (about 3 thoughts I think), you will follow the process of the model as it evolved. As long as you don’t fall into one of the emotional traps you fell into yesterday, it will all be clear in the end and you might be able to run the model in your thoughts. It’s not ready for your fingers though, and I would rather work on it than try and help you build it in your thoughts with more words that say all the same things … been down that path dozens of times with you and it has never worked yet … no reason to think it will this time. I can just build it instead, then you will get it, that path works.  

Seth says
which three thoughts?

anyway, sure go ahead make it work … but then what are you going to do if i find that one of my priority concerns has not been addressed to my liking?   Are you going to be pig headed about it like you have been in the past and leave things in the system that don’t work for me?  or try to brown beat me into thinking that it is my fault that it does not work.  I guess i can trust that you won’t do that shit again.