I don't mind if there's a little intra-cultural pressure to cut down on numberslutting, wrod-iness, or editorial notations. I brought up the whole "can I tag" thing because I thought it was superfluous. I didn't ask for a rule on it. Just tried to bend the culture a little bit around something that was a little bothersome to me. I certainly wouldn't mind if it was determined that it was uncool to numberslut, but I don't know if I could resist to grab a 10,000 either.

I'm not talking about rules! I never have been.

Another thing the not-a-formal-rule worked for was the no-backchannel-talk in Bitches. I think that's comparable. It's not completely gone; but what happened was that some people said "This backchannel talk is proliferating and it's really irritating to me. Can we please stop?" and it's mostly kept in check now.

There's no formal rule; that would be ridiculous.

Another thing the not-a-formal-rule worked for was the no-backchannel-talk in Bitches. I think that's comparable. It's not completely gone; but what happened was that some people said "This backchannel talk is proliferating and it's really irritating to me. Can we please stop?" and it's mostly kept in check now.

Which is also an example of my point that the time and place to talk about it is when and where it's happening. Like this example, or like Betsy did with the swearing in Natter, or like something else that I just thought of but then forgot.

t sulks

Someone else said it first. (And it happens in a lot of threads!)

The problem with backchannel talk in another thread is very different in nature than numberslutting. Numberslutting is annoying, at least to RL (me, I don't mind it). Griping in another thread about a fellow poster is, on the other hand, actually rude. If you are going to backchannel, actually go BEHIND channels to do it.

I'm not certain this is the appropriate thread to be having that conversation

Edit: re-pet peeves, numberslutting, etc.

That said, I am also going to point out that backchannel does not equal griping about other poster. It just means talking off board.

I think there are two issues -- using a thread as faux-backchannel, and referring repeatedly to backchannel while inthread.

I agree with PMM about bringing pet peeves to Bureaucracy. I was going to say something myself, but I didn't like how I had worded it.

I think there are two issues -- using a thread as faux-backchannel, and referring repeatedly to backchannel while inthread.

Oh. My bad, then.

I was a bit baffled by that "backchannel" thing too.

I don't know what Rebecca meant by it, and I almost never look at Bitches.

The definition of "backchannel", for me, is something that happens off-board. In email, in IM clients, on the phone.

I'm not sure if it's backchannel if it happens on someone's blog or LiveJournal.

"Damn that John H is annoying me!" on a blog, especially if it's a blog that's linked from here or talked about here, doesn't seem like backchannel, because it's not a private conversation. [Note: just an example.]

It seems from context that "backchannel" was being used in Bitches to mean "talk elsewhere on Buffistas.org" which is confusing.

No. Two different things.

1. Faux- backchannel. Talking in a thread like it is indeed backchannel, when it's just as public as anywhere else.

2. Meta about backchannel -- exchanges of "insent" "insent" "insent"