I think it's a useful example because it's not obviously of broad interest to the board's realm of interest, or to a large population of the board. But it's better than spamming the threads with it, and there may be lurkers in the Austin area who would be interested. I think there's too much skipping and skimming in Natter to effectively make announcements there.

Yeah. The not of general interest is what worried me. would post more, but keyboard's screwed.

Of course, to go totally flamebaity, I'm really anti-political posts in there, period, full stop, end of story, bang. Joss or DX could be running for president, and I'd be uncomfortable with it.

With Plei on this thing. Excepting DX having a Town Hall meeting in LA to discuss his campaign, because then we could all go out to dinner after. Wheeeeee!!!!

So maybe it comes back to this. If X number of people do have an issue with any specific thing posted in Press, maybe we should talk about it and, for the sake of monkey grooming, whoever is doing the posting should consider not doing it.

This seems fair, and goes back to the consensus culture we've always had.

I agree. I'd add that if Y number of people don't have an issue with or even (actually, I don't think no opinion is all that relative, so I took it out) support a certain post/type of post, that should be taken into consideration WRT monkey grooming, too (because if the posts they like stop, then suddenly they're the ones with the issue). I guess I just get back to ... when can we say something has been decided, and what values are X and Y?

because then we could all go out to dinner after. Wheeeeee!!!!

Oooh, can I have a brunch too?

Oooh, can I have a brunch too?

Only if you announce it in Press.

You want a rationale for an*opinion*? For my personal preference?

No, I may have phrased badly, but I wanted to see reasons that were other then "kinda inconvenient" which was bad shorthand for personal prefrence. Which is all I thought I'd been seeing (my opinion), although Shawn did subsequently put out a good argurment for limitations on what goes in press.

I'm still not sure any of this applies to the Death Match announcements, since they have been described as useful to a percentage of the population of the Buffistas.

I'm still not sure any of this applies to the Death Match announcements, since they have been described as useful to a percentage of the population of the Buffistas.

Ostensibly, all posts are useful to a percentage of the population of the Buffistas. How much of a percentage is the question.

It might be useful to for me to post in Press: "HEY! We're discussing freshwater fish in Natter right now." And then later I might come back and say, "HEY! We're discussin what we bought at Target today in Natter right now!"

At least one Buffista (which is a percentage) might find it useful.

I will delurk in this thread (that I have been watching but carefully not participating in since I haven't been around long enough to have any really useful input for) to say that I don't think it really gets Press-worthy until the freshwater fish has something to contribute to the conversation.

/Doblerizing attempt at humor

Ostensibly, all posts are useful to a percentage of the population of the Buffistas. How much of a percentage is the question.

Right. For purposes of discussion -- with DM notices, I think there were about 6 people registering a concern/irritation, 8 finding them useful and wanting them to stay, and about 12 being neutral on whether they were necessary, but not being bothered by them. This is just from memory of a quick and dirty scan of posts I did out of curiosity during the first and second round of discussions - there's a +/- for error/interpretation there, for sure, and it doesn't include new opinions from this third round. But, for purposes of discussion in terms of the X percentage factor that Kat brought up, how should those numbers speak to deciding an issue?

KristentT: Heh.

/Appreciating humor (actually, this tag never closes)

I never participate in this thread but I feel like I have to weigh in on one thing here...

Of course, to go totally flamebaity, I'm really anti-political posts in there, period, full stop, end of story, bang.

This makes me very uncomfortable. Again to go flamebaity, it feels a little like censorship to me. No other thread has this rule. With the current political climate, I think it's totally acceptable to post topics of this nature in Press when applicable.

For example, I asked Steph to post a link in Press to the ACLU Web site regarding supporting same sex marriage. This is an important issue to me (and I know to many on this board). I was happy to see that Steph posted this link in Bitches and felt that it was something many on the board might like to see, not just Bitches. I appreciate seeing this sort of thing when I'm upset about a political issue and feel hopeless. It gives me a sense of being able to do something about it.

t /justonegaygirl'sopinion