t smooches beverly

I was more than a little confused about why people were so bothered by the announcements in the first place.

I think that is a very common feeling.

Honestly, I got the impression that if it had been taken to a vote, that there was enough popular support for deathmatch notices to continue in Press.

However, I'm glad it didn't go to a vote because I don't like micromanaging the board's functions.

I agree completely, but isn't that the point of Rafmun's comments? That a few more vocal citizens overpowered a majority of others because the others were tired of the complaints? I think it depends on what you think is best for the board. If the majority should always rule, then something is wrong. If it's what the greatest number of people can live with, then it's working fine. I think the danger is that if the conflict-avoidy types keep "losing", they'll eventually leave and the board will be the poorer for it.

But I do wish the decision had felt more like a compromise and less like Elena throwing up her hands and making a change she didn't want to make.

I think Elena did what she felt pressured to do with graciousness and diplomacy. I kind of wish she had merely limited her posts to once a day, like a lot of people seemed to favor, or continued as it was. I'm glad Steph posted and Plei posted and Elena posted and Hec posted and everyone else posted because this is what fosters communication. I did not get the impression that anyone was forced to do anything. But the only person who can truly answer that is Elena.

juliana, thanks for mentioning me, but as I am of the "argue about whether the sky is blue or not" persuasion I think you were thinking of someone else.

psst, Lyra, it is not!

"argue about whether the sky is blue or not"

It most certainly is.

crazy blue sky deniers

I think that before entering a debate (or hell, any conversation), all posters should consider, "Is this constructive to the conversation? Will my post encourage participation?" Cause sometimes I feel like personal insults and bullying happen instead. Also I am feeling like I need to take a break from the board and I'm a long-time participant (from TT days). It's sad-making but I want to enjoy my time on the board and right now, I'm just not.

I think the danger is that if the conflict-avoidy types keep "losing", they'll eventually leave and the board will be the poorer for it.

See - this is why I want to be part of this board. There are posters who can write things so much clearer than I can, in many fewer words. Thanks JonB.

I think Elena did what she felt pressured to do with graciousness and diplomacy. I kind of wish she had merely limited her posts to once a day, like a lot of people seemed to favor, or continued as it was.

I wish the change-of-characters being matched would be posted. All or some rather than all or nothing. Wow, that made no sense when it left my head.

I think it depends on what you think is best for the board. If the majority should always rule, then something is wrong.

Yep. Sometimes, the needs of the many outweighs the wants of the few (cough*spoilage lite*cough), sometimes the needs of the few (various policies) outweigh the wants of the many.

I think Elena did what she felt pressured to do with graciousness and diplomacy. I kind of wish she had merely limited her posts to once a day, like a lot of people seemed to favor, or continued as it was.

I didn't mean for that to sound like a slam on Elena at all. What I was trying to say was that I wish we had agreed on once a day or once per bracket (? -- like, the difference between "all quotes" "half the quotes have been eliminated," "semifinals" and "finals") or whatever. The "all or nothing" seemed like a bad resolution to me.