the numbers indicate that Natter is less busy than it used to be
But is that good or bad? As many people seem to complain about not being able to keep up in Natter as complain about fragmentation.
Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty flowered bonnet, I will end you.
Mal ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
Connie Neil - Jul 26, 2007 5:50:40 am PDT #7511 of 10289
brillig
§ ita § - Jul 26, 2007 5:51:26 am PDT #7512 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
For those of us that like Nattering, it's bad.
Allyson - Jul 26, 2007 5:58:07 am PDT #7513 of 10289
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica
Yeah, I miss the speed of Natter.
bon bon - Jul 26, 2007 6:02:02 am PDT #7514 of 10289
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
I'm guessing the volume of natter means that the majority of people are ok with its speed.
Obviously there are some intractable problems here with whether people can deal with natter or not. I'm not persuaded that skipping/searching is that big a deal. That's what I do when I'm away.
Lee - Jul 26, 2007 6:19:57 am PDT #7515 of 10289
The feeling you get when your brain finally lets your heart get in its pants.
Yeah, I miss the speed of Natter.
Me too.
I'd also like to second what Burrell said here:
this is rubbing the wrong way coming off that highly contentious SPN thread discussion. I just wish things could have been left alone for a while.
Me too. I think the drama bucket thread as proposed is a bad idea, especially after what happened with Boxed Set, but I just don't have the heart for this discussion right now.
§ ita § - Jul 26, 2007 6:35:51 am PDT #7516 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I'm guessing the volume of natter means that the majority of people are ok with its speed.
I disagree. If there are fewer people or fewere topics or no zeitgest just being displeased may not actually affect the volume in any way.
bon bon - Jul 26, 2007 6:45:45 am PDT #7517 of 10289
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
If people can't catch up, they can't post, right? To me, as long as there appears to be a lot of people posting, all of those people are caught up. It's not a necessary condition, but the alternative would be a few people who post all the time. I'm sure some people feel that way, but I don't.
§ ita § - Jul 26, 2007 7:10:31 am PDT #7518 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
To me, as long as there appears to be a lot of people posting, all of those people are caught up.
The way in which I'm displeased with Natter is that I wish there were more of it. There's no way I can see to tell from the volume how many people share that feeling.
Kat - Jul 26, 2007 7:26:01 am PDT #7519 of 10289
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
I do miss seeing posts. There are big chunks of time that pass with no new posts. It's sad.
If we think Natter and Bitches as the de facto social souls of the board, each new thread is like a horcrux (NERD!) that splits that soul a little more.
Jessica - Jul 26, 2007 7:30:55 am PDT #7520 of 10289
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
If we think Natter and Bitches as the de facto social souls of the board, each new thread is like a horcrux (NERD!) that splits that soul a little more.
This is my antiproliferationista stance in a geeky nutshell.