PMM, you have said that before, and you I can see that it would be an unnecessary post to those not participating in the matches, but several participants have pointed out that they are useful for them.

I guess my issue is, if they're on the board, they can see that hey! Posts! and hop in. I don't see that the inconvenience to other people is outweighed by this slight gain in convenience to them, and I feel from my perspective like those who are inconvenienced have been told well, to hell with you if you don't have the time to stick around 24/7.

Of course, CAROMA. Well, jeez, I am very sorry, Cindy, for mistaking you. You guys a are not a bit alike. I won't edit my post so my massive dopiness will remain on record.

And here's where I feel I have to justify my posts in Press... (would this be apple or oranges?)

I guess my issue is, if they're on the board, they can see that hey! Posts! and hop in.

Except that there can be hundreds of posts if people haven't been in for a few days, and the Press posts allow them to jump to the start of the current day.

I don't see that the inconvenience to other people

Inconvenience? Because people have to skim past a post that doesn't interest/apply to them?

is outweighed by this slight gain in convenience to them, and I feel from my perspective like those who are inconvenienced have been told well, to hell with you if you don't have the time to stick around 24/7.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this last part... To hell with who for what?

Except that there can be hundreds of posts if people haven't been in for a few days, and the Press posts allow them to jump to the start of the current day.

And hitting recent allows them to skip to where they can start participating. Dude, you're away from any thread, there can be hundreds of posts. The showthreads get Nilly, but F, C, or M doesn't. This, this is somewhere in between.

Inconvenience? Because people have to skim past a post that doesn't interest/apply to them?

If your bandwidth, personal, is 5 minutes a week, it's a pain in the ass to have to scroll through however many stop and start posts there are in there, and eats into that bandwidth.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this last part... To hell with who for what?

To make this perfectly clear, it feels like you read the discussion, saw some posts in support, and said to hell with the concerns of the people who wondered if that's really why we have Press.

To make this perfectly clear, it feels like you read the discussion, saw some posts in support, and said to hell with the concerns of the people who wondered if that's really why we have Press.

That does make it clearer, thank you. And I didn't say 'to hell with' anyone or their concerns. I looked at those who complained, those who found the posts beneficial, and those who were indifferent, weighed the numbers and came to the conclusion that the benfit for those who used the posts was greater than the annoyance/inconvenience for those who disliked them.

I'm glad that I had a chance to clarify my reasoning - far too often people have ascribed motives to posters without giving them a chance to explain.

If it is the case that the harm to the board is greater than the benefit, then I will stop posting in Press. But that's not what I saw when I read Sartre when I returned from my trip. You, obviously, read it the opposite way.

The only way to settle this will probably be with a vote, and if you want to propose it, I will second you.

If it is the case that the harm to the board is greater than the benefit, then I will stop posting in Press. But that's not what I saw when I read Sartre when I returned from my trip. You, obviously, read it the opposite way.

It felt like you didn't want to discuss it, frankly, which is what got the dander up. And no, I don't want to propose a vote for this.

I'm glad that I had a chance to clarify my reasoning - far too often people have ascribed motives to posters without giving them a chance to explain.

Then please, give us the same consideration.

In weighing, it seems like qualitative was left off, and this doesn't feel like something that can be properly decided with just quantitative.

PMM, honestly, I don't know what to do about this.

It's like we're not even reading the same posts.

Cindy, I didn't say you called people petty. I said you called people discussing what does or does not make them uncomfortable petty. For accuracy's sake -- that's very important.

The other important part of my post ... I don't think the discussion was about you.

When I say b.org's un-pseudish -- I mean that many of the people you named exist IRL for other people on the board. So when I talk to meara, I know exactly who I'm talking to, because I've met her (well, not enough times, but it's a start). Her name isn't the issue. Her identity is. And there's nothing pseudo about it.

Cindy, I apologize for mistyping. I don't have an issue with pseuds. I have an issue with multiple logins for a single user when that login isn't manifesting it's own "character." Clovis? Definitely posts in a flavor that is Clovisy.

I guess I don't feel comfortable with multiple logins because it smacks of sockpuppetry even if it isn't.

So I guess my discomfort is less one of you not posting as a pseud. Rather it's of you posting as Xanderella and then another login as well as me thinking of you as Cindy (and for the record, this has to do with any secondary login not used for another "personality" not particularly with you). As ita mentioned, I find it difficult to pin the identity down and it makes me feel like I don't know who is in the conversation. In other words, I feel played which I'm not into.

Cindy, I apologize for mistyping. I don't have an issue with pseuds. I have an issue with multiple logins for a single user

This is really what I meant too