I think a polite, yet firm, note from an admin type would be appropriate at this point. BTW, I responded to ted's response to my Bismarck post (which was just fine) in a way that I hope sets a good example. Ted's post was perfectly polite and well-stated, and offered up good food for thought--I don't mind having my statements questioned in that way.
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I noted and appreciated that, Anne.
The thoughtful posts serve as a nice example. That hopefully will work to demonstrate how things are done in this here place.
edit - and what Jon said - thanks.
I approve of announcing all new threads except continuations in the Press thread, and of adding [closed] tags to dead threads.
Actually, now that I've thought of it a bit, maybe [archive] instead of [closed].
I don't think we should use [archive] since we have an archive, and those threads aren't there. It might be confusing.
Good point. [closed] it is, then.
Does "anvil[ly | lacious]" need to be in the FAQ? Is that a local thing or does it come from somewhere else? I kind of have an implicit understanding of it but can't remember it ever being introduced or explained.
I think it may have come from MBTV originally, though I'm not sure.
MBTV/TWoP definitely used it in their Wrecked recap, but I think fans were saying it fandom wide, even before then. I know I've seen it far beyond Buffista shores.