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

Again to go flamebaity, it feels a little like censorship to me.

One person expressing a desire that we don't have political posts in Press isn't censorship. And I don't think we've gone far enough down in the discussion that it's even a question of the board trying to control content. So in short, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I doubt we would go that way.

Agreed David. I amend my statement to, "If this were instituted, it would feel a bit like censorship."

Censorship is such a hot-button word. Press is already censored. That's kinda the point.

What ita said, and Shawn, would Bob mind if I married your brain?

Because Shawn pretty much articulated everything I thought, but didn't have the words for.

OK, so the sense I'm getting is that nothing has changed WRT to Press, even though some people don't like some of the stuff that goes in there. It's still up to the individual whether to post something, including all the content that has been identified as inappropriate by some and supported as appropriate by others, but at least now anyone who cares to has probably put his or her two cents in. Is that a fair assessment?

Is that a fair assessment?

Fair, though I'd also note that Elena voluntarily pulled the DM notices, and there seems to be community pressure not to be frivolous with the attention granted.

Fair, though I'd also note that Elena voluntarily pulled the DM notices,

Yes, she did.

and there seems to be community pressure not to be frivolous with the attention granted.

Not to be frivolous with the attention granted to posts in Press -- yes, and I'd add that there's some disagreement re: what frivolous/inappropriate is. As to specific types of posts, even though some are viewed less favorably than others, it's still a matter of personal judgement. So, taking into account that post X may bug some people, a poster still decides if reason's Y and Z outweigh that or don't outweigh it for a particular post.

At this point?

(And, the Stompies regulate natter, etc. in the specialized threads, and I'm assuming there's some latitude for them to judge and delete or repost somewhere else any, you know, wildly inappropriately placed posts, so there's that mechanism, too.)

Wh--there's a Press thread?