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
wiki wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP wiki wiki wiki wiki
Kristen, you've earwormed me with the Black Eyed Peas.
We gotta take it slow/But we're still losing control....
Anyway, our choice seems to be (1) close the Previously thread, or (2) close the Buffy and Angel threads. I can go either way -- there's little enough traffic on the B and A threads that one thread could easily handle both. But the shows are what brought us together, and for sentimental reasons we need at bare minimum a Buffy thread -- which means an Angel thread, too.
Or we could save Previously for when other shows go into syndication -- but that isn't likely for a few years yet. At least until Wonderfalls makes it.
And for now I'm treating this as idle tossing around of ideas. We have at least a couple of months before we have to decide anything.
I believe the idea is to keep the two main threads, but close previously. Since all discussion would be "previously" the main threads would be sufficient.
This is what I was thinking. I'd rather keep Buffy & Angel as seperate threads than combine them into one Previously. As Fred Pete said, it's symbolic.
But the shows are what brought us together, and for sentimental reasons we need at bare minimum a Buffy thread -- which means an Angel thread, too.
Yes, this.
I'd rather keep Buffy & Angel as seperate threads than combine them into one Previously. As Fred Pete said, it's symbolic.
Oh, okay, sure. I thought the suggestion was to close Buffy, Angel AND Previously. My misunderstanding, sorry.
ooh!
Actually, I'm no fun. The first (and only) time DH attempted a spanking in fun? I backhanded him across the chops, purely by instinct. We discovered that Bevvie don't play that. Just that. There are other things, though....
(/natter)
I was just thinking about that, incidentally. How much less regularly-named we are at b.org than we used to be in our previous incarnations. Since TT encouraged it, we tended toward the name-sounding names, even for pseudonyms.
I didn’t know this when I was registering, btw. Trudy told me about it at the LA F2F, and that was, like, a year after I registered. Looking at Cindy’s list of psueds, I’m guessing more than just me didn’t know the real name "tradition.” It’s a dandy thing, and I would have gone that way had I known. If it’s a desired thing, perhaps put a sentence in the FAQ and the reg page? Something like:
“Buffistas first coalesced at Salon’s Table Talk.Table Talk encouraged people to use their real names in creating a sense of community, and we’ve carried that tradition over to our board. Not everyone uses their real name, but you are encouraged to do so.”
I thought Lurkers = Pete, although it wasn’t making 100% sense (also keeping in mind that all I’ve had time to read since Sat. AM is F2F, Press, Beep Me, COMM, and this.), thought Victor = ferrets, had no idea about robots, and thank you for explaining why you changed your name, Frankenbudda.
The way we've done impulsive gestures in the past has generally been someone coming up with an idea, then quietly circulating and organizing it backchannel. I kind of prefer that, because we're not handing out anything in an Official Board Capacity; it's just people surprising their friends with cool stuff.
The problem with this is that not everyone finds out about it backchannel. I think I've heard of only one of the impulsive gesture type things beforehand. When I do hear about them after the fact, I wish I would have had a chance to contribute.
What Sue said.
I'm fine with (well, not totally fine, but mostly OK) people putting something in Press or wherever saying, "we're buying this person this thing for this reason, if you want to contribute, here's the paypal address." I'm less fine with having a fund the way people were discussing it. Too official.
You can't surprise someone if you put something in Press. The only way to surprise someone is to use email or AIM or whatever.
It seems to me that generally how it works is, someone gets an idea to do something nice, and then they just email the people in their address book about it. Hard to do a surprise any other way, but it does mean that it's only the idea-haver's immediate circle that gets the email.
