[silvarilon]

Is it really because it meandered?
Or is it because it became mud-slinging about an argument that we've seen many times before?

The internet is full of meandering, successful, useful threads. We've build some very useful techniques for dealing with them, such as starting new threads to discuss a tangent when it becomes more than two or three posts.

Mmmm, yes. But it was put in the top mud sites forum, where there are many non-RPI participants. And, as chaosprime said...
I might not run an RPI (using your definition) but I'd run a game that has what I'd consider to be "intensive role-play" - therefore I was interested in the topic. And being - I hope - a member of this forum community, I (amongst others) posted follow-up questions.

Yes, those questions did create tangents. But they didn't kill the thread. Nothing is stopping someone making a post saying: "I'm an RPI Veteran, and my opinion is..."
In fact, it's the lack of those posts that feeds the discussion on the tangents.

Really? Considering the original post was about potential declining quality of the roleplay, and "hard" fantasy appears to be about building the believability of the game world, which will have a significant impact on good roleplayers... it seems related to me.

Really? Still considering the OP was about potential declining quality of RP, the discussion of OOC channels seems relevant. Specifically because the discussion was about how those channels influence RP, and how with more ubiquitous IM availability everyone has access to OOC channels. Could it be possible that their greater access to OOC channels impacts their RP? ... it seems related to me.

What other crap? The two things listed above are pretty relevant, and neither was presented in a way that would stop anyone responding with new opinions about RPIs, or the related quality.

You yourself discussed hack & slash vs roleplay in this thread. Is that any less tangental? I'd say it was a valid part of the discussion, especially since it referenced RPIs, but I'm finding it pretty hard to distinguish between what is "crap" and what is "useful on-topic discussion"

The only "crap" I've seen in this thread was the unnecessary insult-slinging.

Only a veteran of RPIs could give a "yes/no" answer to the original topic of whether the RP has been degrading. I agree with that.

But is it not possible that non-veterans could still participate in the discussion about *why* the RP has (or has not) been degrading. Again, using the above example of chat channels, RPIs - by definition - have no OOC chat channels. If that could be a factor in RP degradation, and therefore a relevant part of the discussion, wouldn't opinions from both sides of the fence be useful? There is a wider context in which RPIs exist, it seems arrogant to exclude participants from that context, where their expertise is actually relevant.

I'd argue differently.
Want to keep threads from turning into flame wars? Then show respect and consideration for the other participants. Build an environment where we discuss differences of opinion without insulting the debaters. Build an environment where we segregate conversations that have happened before to their own threads, allowing the other participants to still provide their input (and part of that respect is that they will move the discussion to the new thread.)

I'll agree and accept that. I understand the intention, which is what interested me in this thread.

I don't think opinions are bad, or the problem, as long as they are expressed respectfully.

By Prof's reasoning, the thread went off topic when you asked Scandum what "soft fiction" is. I was then guilty for following that with a longer post about hard/soft fiction. I'm often guilty of rambling.

But I also see relevant discussion, comments about soft vs hard fiction being more useful in RP mandatory muds, mention of how Atonement fits into those classifications.

So was the feedback from that tangent really that far off-topic?

Maybe it was. It's just... hard, on the internet, to know the intention. It could be that tangents are useful and desired. They could be undesired. But they'll keep happening, unless there is some etiquette in place.

So my suggestion is that if someone feels a tangent isn't productive to the original thread, they do exactly what Newworlds did. Create a new thread, say "Following from the discussion here <link>" and make a post in the original thread saying "Creating a new discussion about the IC vs OOC chat channels tangent here <link>"

Then everyone gets what they want. The thread can return to track, nobody is excluded from the discussion, and everyone benefits from a broader context.