I. Miss. Doyle.

I would only hope it could be "are we done" rather than "am I done". Thread titles ought to have plural personal pronouns if they have any at all, IMHO.

But we aren't done. The Buffistas aren't done. The Buffistas won't even be done with Angel once Angel is done.

BuFFYSTuz-N-AnGle4eva!!!!!!!!!!111

Just caught up on the user filter discussion in BaBB and wanted to broach the discussion to the board at large.

As an extension of what is already the culture on the board, I guess I'd just want to encourage people to be discreet about using the filter.

In short, don't make a point of announcing "That's it! Fuck you psycho crackpot! You're on my filter" and flouncing off. In short, the first rule of filtering is don't talk about who you're filtering.

I think that's basic politeness and consistent with our culture, and probably the norm on better boards everywhere. But the user filter will affect things here and I just thought I'd raise the notion.

In short, the first rule of filtering is don't talk about who you're filtering.

I agree. It's just plain rude. I'd also suggest that the second rule of filtering is not to complain or whine if you suspect you're being filtered. It only increases the number of folks who will filter you.

I think we need to do more than "encourage". I think it ought to be grounds for a warning.

I'd also suggest that the second rule of filtering is not to complain or whine if you suspect you're being filtered.

I'm glad you mentioned this, DX. I hereby promise not to do this. I can be a whiner.

I vote for the direct quote for the next Angel thread title. Though it is bound to make me allergic. I heart Doyle bigtime and the whole RL situation w/GQ makes me so sad I can't even watch Hero.

Jon - I haven't dropped the ball entirely on the FAQ - I'll e you the next section (which prompted no changes to what I posted cept folks agreeing to the history page) soon.

I think we need to do more than "encourage". I think it ought to be grounds for a warning.

Err. I'd rather we not identify anything as automatically deserving of a warning. Context is everything.

signed, me, the moral relativist

which prompted no changes to what I posted

There was also some agreement that something should be done to remember the Stors.

Consuela -- you're right. But I still think if anyone does it, and it's not two friends busting on each other, it deserves more than a finger wag.

Speaking of the FAQ, there will be an entry explaining how to use the filter. I think there ought to be a line at the end saying something like "announcing you've filtered someone is considered extremely rude, and may be grounds for an official warning".

There was also some agreement that something should be done to remember the Stors.

Yup. And the stuff from Dialect that it is outdated for the board but still should be archived. I will note that - and what is to be archived for Dialect when I get to it.

Speaking of the FAQ, there will be an entry explaining how to use the filter. I think there ought to be a line at the end saying something like "announcing you've filtered someone is considered extremely rude, and may be grounds for an official warning".

Should this, in whatever form it takes eventually, maybe be on the "How To" page - and then repeated in the FAQ?

In short, don't make a point of announcing "That's it! Fuck you psycho crackpot! You're on my filter" and flouncing off. In short, the first rule of filtering is don't talk about who you're filtering.

From now on I'm going to call the filter 'Flight Club'.