Monty ,'Trash'
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
Oh, OK, thanks.
Then I do agree with those who say (a) we should be explicit about WX and PF being off-limits too in the future, so no one can ever claim righteous ignorance, and also (b) threats of violence against other Buffistas on Buffista boards should lead to some sort of automatic sporking, no questions asked.
I'm finding myself grateful she never knew my real name. She'd have had a field day.
we should be explicit about WX and PF being off-limits too in the future
Already put it on the short etiquette page.
Not to keep dragging the subject up, but I think Michele's post illustrate's why we need to announce bannings and link to relevant information.
The admins needn't say "So and so was finally banned because of such and such violation" in the Press announcement, but I do think that some kind of announcement should be made so that people who can't keep up or have been dark can find out what's going on without trying to ask people or wade through all the B'cracy posts.
It's certainly not airing dirty laundry as we are keeping it on site. I know Wolfram was worried about someone, not a member, reading about the banning and becoming bothersome, however anyone can read the B'cracy posts and follow what's being said.
Should we make the etiquette links go to the short etiquette page automatically? It seems like it's our working document much more than the filk is.
Then I do agree with those who say (a) we should be explicit about WX and PF being off-limits too in the future, so no one can ever claim righteous ignorance, and also (b) threats of violence against other Buffistas on Buffista boards should lead to some sort of automatic sporking, no questions asked.
Agree on both. Jon's already added (a) to the FAQ.
x-post. Stupid work.
Should we make the etiquette links go to the short etiquette page automatically? It seems like it's our working document much more than the filk is.
I suggested that a while back and most folks were against it. Is there someone willing to update the filky version? No filk talent is needed since the updates can go into the "spoken" parts. You just have to make sure that everyone in the short version is covered in the filk version.
If someone can provide me with a list of items that need to be incorporated, I can update the filk text.
t natter
I'm finding myself grateful she never knew my real name. She'd have had a field day.
BWAH!
t /natter
I suggested that a while back and most folks were against it.
I'm really strongly for it, and I never said so because it seemed like it was already decided. But this is really a good instance of why. We need the etiquette to be flexible, and to be changeable quickly when needed.
And there are people who don't like to read filk. Who don't know the tune. Who find it a hundred times more difficult to get important content out of something structured as a song than they would if it were in prose. If we're going to say that we expect people to hold to the rules, the simple version should be the default.
(Also, as someone who has never once made it through the filky version, and not because I think it's bad filk at all, I find the "attention-span challenged" business really personally insulting, but that may just be me.)