Topic: FAQ suggestion - clarification of the "jargon" rule.
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
There seems to be confusion over the rule / faq about board jargon.
The rule currently says:
quote:What do SLC, NFBSK, and other abbreviations stand for?
Some of the jargon used on this board may be unfamiliar to you. You can learn what various terms mean through context and observation; please do not create new threads and interrupt discussions to ask about them.
I suggest that this is changed to:
quote:What do SLC, NFBSK, and other abbreviations stand for?
Some of the jargon used on this board may be unfamiliar to you. Often, terms are coined by board members and are therefore not official and frequently change. This means that it is not feasible for the faqs to contain a complete list.
You can learn what various terms mean through context and observation; please do not create new threads to ask about them. If you must ask, do so in the thread where you saw the term.
It may be a good idea to list the meaning of some of the terms that are more or less "official" such as NFBSK and Glurge, too.
(edited to add) Perhaps the last lines should be:
quote:You can learn what various terms mean through context and observation, or in some cases by searching the board or using Google. Please do not create new threads to ask about them. If you must ask, do so in the thread where you saw the term.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only comment would be to clarify that the "rule" to not styart new threads on a certain subject should be clearly stated as a directive, not a request.
When you say something sych as "please do not" you are making a request.
If you say "do not" you providing direction.
The FAQ doesn't do a good job making clear what's a definite "rule" and what's considered polite.
Posts: 23 | From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by popSartre: The FAQ doesn't do a good job making clear what's a definite "rule" and what's considered polite.
I agree; I almost made a new post to say this too but decided it didn't need one.
In the past the only definite rule used to be "Be polite, don't shout, wipe your feet" or something. It was generally a common sense / individual discretion thing. I think it pretty much still is, despite the impression that's sometimes given.
(edit) Some of the "rules / guidelines" are enforced, though - for example if somebody posts an entire copyright article, then snopes tends to edit it and substitute a link to the source. And people do occasionally get banned; I know that incorrect profile information is a bannable offence, but some other behaviour gets you banned if you do it repeatedly. I understand that there's a warning system in place so I assume that if you're in danger of being banned then you'll have a chance to sort things out before you are banned. (Well, except in extreme cases.)
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree here, it seems odd to me to have please on an ironclad rule for politeness, but no suggestions on how to find out other then "read the forum". The forums are so vast it is a difficult task to find something specific.
I feel it would be more polite to have it stated as an ironclad rule (if that is what it is) without the please, but offer resources to finding the information out if one's efforts to search the boards has been fruitless.
-------------------- ~All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream~ E.A.Poe
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today. ~James Dean~ Posts: 516 | From: Anderson, Indiana | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: Perhaps the last lines should be:
quote:You can learn what various terms mean through context and observation, or in some cases by searching the board or using Google. Please do not create new threads to ask about them. If you must ask, do so in the thread where you saw the term.
Alternatively:
If you must ask, please PM the person who used the term or another poster who appears to have been around for a while, rather than interrupting the flow of discussion.
Nonny
-------------------- When there isn't anything else worth analyzing, we examine our collective navel. I found thirty-six cents in change in mine the other day. Let no one say that there is no profit in philosophy. -- Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 10141 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by splatters of Nonny Mousse:
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: Perhaps the last lines should be:
quote:You can learn what various terms mean through context and observation, or in some cases by searching the board or using Google. Please do not create new threads to ask about them. If you must ask, do so in the thread where you saw the term.
Alternatively:
If you must ask, please PM the person who used the term or another poster who appears to have been around for a while, rather than interrupting the flow of discussion.
Nonny
Perhaps forming a snopes' welcome wagon sort of thing, maybe, with some sort of flag in the member status. These would be volunteer snopesters who are open to being PMed about whatever questions new snopesters might have, and providing polite, factual answers to those questions.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I can understand that people may be shy of sending a Private Message, but regardless of that I think it isn't such a good suggestion for a few reasons:
1) The person that made the post may not check the board frequently and so may not reply. 2) Others may also ask the same question and so the poster may get multiple messages and have to reply to them all. 3) Posting the answer in the thread rather than privately will mean that anybody reading the thread can see it, and in the long run it'll probably mean fewer people asking.
Personally I have no trouble at all with answering questions like that in the thread.
(edit) AnglRdr's suggestion would help with those, but it increases the work for the administrators / mods. Also it may make the "welcome committee" look more official than they are. I'd be happy to have a "welcome flag" if it was feasible though.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by splatters of Nonny Mousse:
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: Perhaps the last lines should be:
quote:You can learn what various terms mean through context and observation, or in some cases by searching the board or using Google. Please do not create new threads to ask about them. If you must ask, do so in the thread where you saw the term.
Alternatively:
If you must ask, please PM the person who used the term or another poster who appears to have been around for a while, rather than interrupting the flow of discussion.
Nonny
Perhaps forming a snopes' welcome wagon sort of thing, maybe, with some sort of flag in the member status. These would be volunteer snopesters who are open to being PMed about whatever questions new snopesters might have, and providing polite, factual answers to those questions.
I'd certainly be happy to be part of such a welcome wagon. Newbies sometimes spontaneously PM me about things already.
Nonny
-------------------- When there isn't anything else worth analyzing, we examine our collective navel. I found thirty-six cents in change in mine the other day. Let no one say that there is no profit in philosophy. -- Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 10141 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think instead of having a welcome committee, we should just point people to the initiation thread.
So, snopesters don't have to commit to helping the newbies. If regular snopester's have the time to answer questions, they can hang around in the initiation thread, otherwise don't.
Of course, that won't help if people misunderstand the FAQ.
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other rules in addition to the "jargon" rule from the snopes.com FAQs (emphasis mine):
quote:What other rules should I be aware of?
The primary rule of this board is for members to act civilly towards each other. Other guidelines for board members include (but are not limited to):
Check the main site at www.snopes.com before posting inquiries to ensure that your topics haven't already been covered there.
Use descriptive topic names when starting new threads, ones that reflect the subjects of your posts. Topic names such as "I just got this in e-mail," "Here's another one," or "Yuck!" are not good choices.
When replying to another member's post, please quote only enough of the preceding post to establish the context of your reply.
Respect others' copyrights. Specifically, do not post the complete text of newspaper and magazine articles to this board; post excerpts and/or URLs to articles instead.
All the URLs for newspaper articles posted to this board point to sites with free access; if registration is required to view articles, it is a free one-time only registration. If you choose not to register for these sites, that is your prerogative, but please do not post to complain about the necessity of registering.
If you decide to publicly proclaim that you are leaving this board forever, please be sure you really mean it, because you won't be welcomed back.
This message board is for the use of registered members only; it is not a conduit for relaying messages from unregistered visitors, not-yet-approved members, suspended members, or banned members.
Fortunately, I thought to do a Google on NFBSK and found Dan's lingo page that way. I also PM'd people a time or two with other questions and found them very willing to be of assistance. In addition, I have been corrected several times in public by those in charge, as well as by other members who were trying to help me get over being a clueless newbie. I realize that everyone is different and am only relating my experience here. I agree that some clarification would be helpful to future generations of snopesters, even though I muddled through without any lasting scars. Good advice for newbies, including me, would be to consider all such corrections and suggestions to be learning experiences meant to be helpful and to move on.
All of that being said, the rules I emphasized are broken quite frequently, especially the first one. The rules here are quite reasonable, and it would behoove all of us to abide by that one in particular. This is not a reflection on anyone in this thread (so far, anyway).
Please also remember that it is very difficult to moderate a board with this many members who have so many different life experiences and opinions. BTDT, though with not nearly as many members. Sometimes you just want to stomp your feet and scream!
One thing I have learned, you can disagree with the minion, the moderator or the owners, but you will still be treated with all due respect.
I hope this isn't a hijack.* If it is, sorry, these thoughts just came to mind while I was reading the three new suggestion threads.
*See? Even after six months, I'm still not sure about some things and am still learning.
-------------------- "This air we're breathing. Oxygen, isn't it?"~I’mNotDedalus, impersonating Vincent D’Onofrio.|"Sometimes trying to communicate can be like walking through a minefield."~wanderwoman "Give people a break. It's not easy doing a life."~Joshua Halberstam Posts: 4020 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by splatters of Nonny Mousse:
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: Perhaps the last lines should be:
quote:You can learn what various terms mean through context and observation, or in some cases by searching the board or using Google. Please do not create new threads to ask about them. If you must ask, do so in the thread where you saw the term.
Alternatively:
If you must ask, please PM the person who used the term or another poster who appears to have been around for a while, rather than interrupting the flow of discussion.
Nonny
This is something that some people are not comfortable doing. I would not PM just a random snopster to find out info. That is why a list of mods who could be PM'd would be a good thing. I would not feel comfy PM'ing a stranger, but someone whose job it is to feild those questions would be different.
-------------------- ~All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream~ E.A.Poe
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today. ~James Dean~ Posts: 516 | From: Anderson, Indiana | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by splatters of Nonny Mousse: Alternatively:
If you must ask, please PM the person who used the term or another poster who appears to have been around for a while, rather than interrupting the flow of discussion.
This is something that some people are not comfortable doing. I would not PM just a random snopster to find out info. That is why a list of mods who could be PM'd would be a good thing. I would not feel comfy PM'ing a stranger, but someone whose job it is to feild those questions would be different.
Why people purport to be "shy" or "uncomfortable" sending a PM, but have no problem shouting their ignorance from the rooftops is beyond me. The absolute worst that can happen is someone ignores your PM. If you don't want to be answered in public, don't ask in public.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why is asking in public such a big honking deal? I don't see it as "ignorance," but as someone at least trying to learn what all these stupid acronyms mean. I can easily see that some are more difficult for a newbie to understand than others (NFBSK is pretty obvious, but others can disappear from use for a while and then pop back up).
If the board as an entity is going to endorse the use of these terms, then it should offer a place to explain them. Perhaps just a stickied thread somewhere on "What X means," linked to in the FAQ.
The same questions and the same suggestions keep coming up over and over again, and yet all the blame seems to be placed on newbies who "interrupt" to ask questions. Isn't the board supposed to be a place to question, as opposed to "shush and figure it out yourself?"
I just don't think the PM idea is completely realistic, and that's speaking as someone who has moderated another board. Waiting for people to pick up PMs can be seconds or weeks, you never know. We have many members who don't log in all that often, and some who have PMs turned off. As a new member, I think I would find myself rather intimidated by the idea of randomly PMing someone, even if they were publicly identified as a moderator. In fact, PMing a mod might be even more intimidating, not wanting to bother them with such petty matters.
-------------------- This has been yet another... USELESS POST. Posts: 6105 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by splatters of Nonny Mousse: Alternatively:
If you must ask, please PM the person who used the term or another poster who appears to have been around for a while, rather than interrupting the flow of discussion.
This is something that some people are not comfortable doing. I would not PM just a random snopster to find out info. That is why a list of mods who could be PM'd would be a good thing. I would not feel comfy PM'ing a stranger, but someone whose job it is to feild those questions would be different.
Why people purport to be "shy" or "uncomfortable" sending a PM, but have no problem shouting their ignorance from the rooftops is beyond me. The absolute worst that can happen is someone ignores your PM. If you don't want to be answered in public, don't ask in public.
Four Kitties
I don't have any problem recieving or asking public questions. I had a problem because asking in public, from reading the FAQ, is taboo here. Who is shouting their ignorance BTW? And frankly, there is MUCH MUCH MUCH that I am ignorant of and I will never be ashamed of seeking out information. Everybody is ignorant in thier own way. Why make that into a bad thing?
-------------------- ~All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream~ E.A.Poe
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today. ~James Dean~ Posts: 516 | From: Anderson, Indiana | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I think interupting discussions is in the eye of the beholder. There are millions of threads where people are asked to define terms. They might not be snopes specific terms and that might be the difference, but using terms that not everyone knows impedes the discussion and clarifying allows discussion to continue.
-------------------- I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.
posted
While I may have worded it a bit nicer, I'm with Astra on this one. I'm not sure why asking in public is such a big deal. People hijack threads all the time, on purpose, stating that they are doing so. These threads either continue on the hijacked line of discussion, or go back to the original line of discussion. In this case the question would be answered and the original discussion could continue. Were they to start a totally new thread, however, that would be a different story, since that is clearly stated as a no-no in the rules. I definitely wouldn't just randomly PM someone, not because I'm shy, because wether they mind or not, that just feels like the worst internet etiquette ever.
However, the best suggestion in this thread is to have a stickied topic. Even better would be to just have a website with all the acronyms and their meanings (I know someone already has one in their signature) either stickied or added as a link to either the FAQ or some other part of the forum. Better yet would be for snopes to have its own Wikicity, which could then be stickied or added to the FAQ, and people could add to it, including acronyms, as they feel like it. (I'm talking about a wiki about the community and history of snopes, not a wiki about UL's.)
quote:Originally posted by happyfrog: And frankly, there is MUCH MUCH MUCH that I am ignorant of and I will never be ashamed of seeking out information. Everybody is ignorant in thier own way. Why make that into a bad thing?
It is not a bad thing in general; interrupting a thread or starting a new thread to ask for the definition of a term, as opposed to looking it up yourself or asking in a PM, is a bad thing because snopes has defined it that way and it's his board. If you don't like it, take it up with him.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, for a while people were directed to Dark Dan's page, but he doesn't post as much as he used to. I just think it would be better to have something physically located on the board to answer 90% of these questions before they are asked - it doesn't even have to be a moderator-run thread, just something like Midgard suggested, a user-updated thread or a wiki-type thing. Anything is better than having this issue pop up every couple of months.
-------------------- This has been yet another... USELESS POST. Posts: 6105 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by happyfrog: And frankly, there is MUCH MUCH MUCH that I am ignorant of and I will never be ashamed of seeking out information. Everybody is ignorant in thier own way. Why make that into a bad thing?
It is not a bad thing in general; interrupting a thread or starting a new thread to ask for the definition of a term, as opposed to looking it up yourself or asking in a PM, is a bad thing because snopes has defined it that way and it's his board. If you don't like it, take it up with him.
Four Kitties
See, isnt' that what is being done right now? Or would he rather all the people posting on this board to individually contact him about this issue?
What people are attempting to communicate here is 1) finding a very specific term and it's meaning can be very difficult. 2) right now there is a gap, those people who havn't been able to find it out on their own(even though they have tried, have given it a good effort), don't feel comfortable PM'ing a random strange and don't want to either break the rules or stay in the dark.
So people are making suggestions, have a list of mods that it's OK to PM or pointing people towards the Initiation or Unhijackable threads.
We are trying to work toward change so the next person who feels the need to ask will feel they have other viable options then to break the rules.
-------------------- ~All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream~ E.A.Poe
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today. ~James Dean~ Posts: 516 | From: Anderson, Indiana | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if I was a newbie I'd be much more shy of sending a PM than asking a question on the board. A PM is a Personal Message, and it's a much more personal thing than to semi-almost-anonymously post a mesasge "out loud" as it were. It's almost as if you're opening yourself up to a specific person rather than just a bunch of random words on a screen. I could almost liken it to the shy actor: no trouble being loud or obnoxious or doing all sort in front of a hundred people on a stage, but can barely string a sentence together when with another person alone.
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by happyfrog: So people are making suggestions, have a list of mods that it's OK to PM or pointing people towards the Initiation or Unhijackable threads.
Having a thread stickied at the top of the forum that says "Welcome to the ULMB" isn't enough of a pointer?
snopes and Jenn are moderators, not babysitters.
4K
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, when it is one forum of almost sixty, no it isn't enough.
Essentially all that is being asked is that people reading the FAQ be pointed to SLC central and the initiation thread as a safe place to ask those questions when he says "don't start topics to ask".
Where have I suggested that they should be babysitters? I'm trying to advocate a way so people can find it out themselves without disrupting the board.
-------------------- ~All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream~ E.A.Poe
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today. ~James Dean~ Posts: 516 | From: Anderson, Indiana | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by happyfrog: I'm trying to advocate a way so people can find it out themselves without disrupting the board.
Because the system that's been in place since long before you got here isn't good enough for you. You've made that abundantly clear.
I'm certain that snopes will give your suggestions all the credence they deserve.
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying it isn't good enough for me, I am not the one who started this topic, I am simply voicing my opinion that I agree with the OP. What is wrong with change now and then? The only constant in the world is change and saying "it might work smoother with a small change" is not saying the old way didn't work. I'm not complaining about the whole system, I'm only saying the system might run a little smoother with a tweaking.
I know snopes is a fair and reasonable person so I have no doubt whatsoever that he will give this matter the consideration it deserves.
-------------------- ~All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream~ E.A.Poe
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today. ~James Dean~ Posts: 516 | From: Anderson, Indiana | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I am the one who started this topic (although because I saw confusion elsewhere, rather than because it personally affects me much), and it isn't good enough for me.
You can't use the "system that's been in place since long before you got here" line on me, because I've been posting here since before the UBB boards came on line, and when they first came on line there were far fewer posters and only two forums ("Urban Legends" and "SLC"). The boards as they are now, and the system that's in place at the moment, have built up gradually since then, and because I saw it all happen it didn't confuse me too much. (Having said that, I changed my posting habits some time ago to use "Active Topics" rather than try to work out which specific forums I was interested in, because I'm generally interested in all of them. The "Active Topics" page changes and simplifies the way you see the board.)
If I was a new poster these days then yes, it would confuse me. And yes, I'd be pissed off and intimidated if I'd asked a question, having tried to find the answer, and got this response.
That's why I thought it was worth suggesting a clarification.
And yes, I know it's only a message board and doesn't really matter in the long run.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by happyfrog: I know snopes is a fair and reasonable person so I have no doubt whatsoever that he will give this matter the consideration it deserves.
Not that I'm disagreeing, mind, but I'm wondering upon what you're basing this opinion. In-depth analysis of his articles on the ULRP? Decades-long correspondence? Long-distance phone calls?
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
... Are you disagreeing with happyfrog, or questioning at least, that snopes is a fair and reasonable person, Four Kitties? If not, what do you mean?
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose my question would be the following:
Why is it that when members in good standing have questions about the way things are managed, and they ask questions about these things, they are met with animosity?
Sure, sometimes text on a screen is subject to interpretation and can be mis-read. But when there's a case of repetitive hostility, it might indicate a larger problem.
Apparently, when the arguments run out, "send it to snopes" becomes the stock answer.
It's nice to be accused of "behaving like an ass" because I questioned things, and then left to wonder how that defines behaving civilly.
Posts: 23 | From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: ... Are you disagreeing with happyfrog, or questioning at least, that snopes is a fair and reasonable person, Four Kitties? If not, what do you mean?
I think snopes is a reasonable guy. (un)happyfrog says she knows he is "fair and reasonable," which verb implies a personal relationship. I'm wondering how she knows. She's under no obligation to answer, of course, just to satisfy my curiosity.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by happyfrog: I know snopes is a fair and reasonable person so I have no doubt whatsoever that he will give this matter the consideration it deserves.
Not that I'm disagreeing, mind, but I'm wondering upon what you're basing this opinion. In-depth analysis of his articles on the ULRP? Decades-long correspondence? Long-distance phone calls?
Anyone who has run a message board for as long as he has and does it as well as he does with everything running as smoothly as it does is certain to be a fair and reasonable person. I've gone through enough people who were not fair and reasonable to know someone who is when I am on thier board.
The posts of his I have read have reinforced my belief.
I do not know him personally.
-------------------- ~All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream~ E.A.Poe
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today. ~James Dean~ Posts: 516 | From: Anderson, Indiana | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Back on constructive suggestions - as for the confusion between guidelines and rules, perhaps it would be worth having a section at the start of the faqs (perhaps distinct from the questions, or perhaps phrased as a question itself) as follows:
quote:The following behaviour will result in your posting rights being revoked without warning:
(list here)
If you break the following rules then you will be given an Official Warning. After X Official Warnings your posting rights will be revoked. An Official Warning will be in form x and come from person y or z.
(list here)
As well as these strict rules, the board has some informal guidelines to help things run smoothly. If you break these guidelines you may annoy other posters. (We may issue an official warning if you repeatedly break the guidelines after being informally asked not to. [This might confuse things - what do you think?])
(list here)
Then of course it would be up to snopes how strictly or otherwise it was enforced.
I'm not trying to suggest any changes to the way the board is run, since as far as I'm aware this is pretty much the way it's run, and most of the guidelines and rules are already listed. It's the "as far as I'm aware" that bothers me.
It might be worth clarifying before we start to run into situations where new posters may or may not be being reprimanded by people who may or may not be moderators because they may or may not be breaking things which may or may not be rules.
I hope it doesn't seem too formal suddenly, but the boards are bigger than they used to be, and some of the things that used to be taken for granted may no longer apply.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to a snopes wiki, I believe if you go to wikipedia and type in "snopes", you'll be taken to the Urban Legends Reference Pages entry where you'll get links to all of this stuff. I know BillD was quite busy for a while doing this. At the very bottom of the page is a snopes lingo link. Problem solved.(?)
quote:Originally posted by happyfrog: I'm trying to advocate a way so people can find it out themselves without disrupting the board.
Because the system that's been in place since long before you got here isn't good enough for you. You've made that abundantly clear.
I'm certain that snopes will give your suggestions all the credence they deserve.
Why the snark? The post seemed very reasonable, yet your reaction was far from it.
If the reaction to any suggestion is, "If you don't like the way we run things, then leave...", why even have a "Suggestion Box"?
ETA: Another one in the same vein:
quote:...I'm wondering upon what you're basing this opinion. In-depth analysis of his articles on the ULRP? Decades-long correspondence? Long-distance phone calls?
Again, the poster made a reasonable post, yet you jump all over it.
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we now have a sticky initiation thread at the beginning of the SLC forum, I personally feel that the rule as stands is ok with an inclusion of "if you can't figure it out, ask in the most recent initiation thread." (of course, more polite and better worded)
If that is not one of the more basic reasons for the initiation thread, than what is? (No - not naked mole rats or sumo wrestlers! ) And if you aren't comfortable to ask in the initiation thread, there is always an unhijackable thread where a question regarding jargon would not disrupt the on-going discussion in that thread.
ETA: Spanked by happyfrog!
-------------------- I swear, it was funnier in my head. Yeah, I used to be pink. vanilla_pink. Posts: 2493 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Contact me for discounts Charter member WNDMDC "I am putting you on hold now.Listen to the elevator music and LIKE it."~My 'J' Posts: 1816 | From: NE, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Good advice for newbies, including me, would be to consider all such corrections and suggestions to be learning experiences meant to be helpful and to move on.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
) And if you aren't comfortable to ask in the initiation thread, there is always an unhijackable thread where a question regarding jargon would not disrupt the on-going discussion in that thread.
