Nice work, tina! There are (trans)scripts at [link]

Doublepost, sorry.

I think we should check with shrift to see if she's okay with linking to that in our FAQ. (Then again, she posts links on the board, so maybe there's no difference?).

Also -- is there any polite way we can ask in the FAQ/Etiquette that people not sign their posts? I do not know why it's so hard for me to scroll past, but it is.

If in Etiquette, it could read something like:

• Like all boards, we have a somewhat unique posting style. In particular, we tend to quote someone (with a > tag) when replying to them; we do not usually put names in bold; and there's no need to sign your name at the bottom of your posts, because your login appears at the top of each post. While none of these things are musts, they will make fitting in a little easier.

Huh? Given that I didn't edit that out, I think you're doing a fine job of looking crazy all by your lonesome.

Yes. Yes I am.

I'm not comfortable with that, LJ. It smacks a bit of codifying something that evolved, and will continue to. I think that mentioning we usually mark quoted content with a > (and the effect it has), but that's as far as I'd want to go.

I'm not in love with signing posts, but that doesn't extend as far as me recommending people don't do it.

I think we should check with shrift to see if she's okay with linking to that in our FAQ. (Then again, she posts links on the board, so maybe there's no difference?).

I thought this as well. I know she posts links in Press, but I don't know if its is OK to make it all official in the FAQ.

Jon - is just leaving my post like that gonna work for you as far as being easy for you to work from to make changes? Should I e-mail you something? Am I making any sense?

I am working on about 3 and 1/2 hours of sleep and no coffee at the moment - so perhaps not.

It smacks a bit of codifying something that evolved, and will continue to.

Yeah, that's a fair point. I don't know -- we don't want to sound like The Assholes of All Time ("post this way or die!"), but OTOH it seems to me like the point of the etiquette document is suggesting ways to fit in smoothly. Things like not signing posts and quoting people in replies is almost as much a part of that as abiding by our NAFDA rules.

But you're right that it might be overly dogmatic to put in an official document.

I can see the quoting not having occurred to a new poster (or it seeming overly complicated before you get the hang of quick-editing). But the people who sign posts know that 99.99% of us don't sign posts. They just don't care.

They may be underestimating how many of the people that preceded them it pissed off, but I had no idea it was a big deal (on the level of spoiling people, I mean).

Reminding people not to sign their posts reminds me way too much of TWoP!

But the people who sign posts know that 99.99% of us don't sign posts. They just don't care.

You think? I think it's more that they're used to fora where you *do* sign your name, so they sign it out of habit and don't really notice that no one else does.

I had no idea it was a big deal (on the level of spoiling people, I mean).

Well, I did use the word "almost." But it depends on how you define "big deal." It's the difference between one big thing, and a little thing done 500 times. Repeated little things tend to bug me more, but that's totally a personal mileage thing.

Edit:

Reminding people not to sign their posts reminds me way to much of TWoP!

Yeah, the chance we'd look like assholes if we codified it does bother me, so that's a valid argument.

So can I just hit people who sign their names? Please?