Commenting on Stuff to Watch

edited May 2009 in Forum Discussion
As we get some wonderful new folks here on Story Games, the Stuff to Watch commenting style seems to have gotten a little lost in the shuffle. Perhaps those commenting instructions could be appended to the first post of every Stuff to Watch?

Comments

  • I think everyone thinks their fourth comment is just so important it's worth breaking the rules for.

    Graham
  • Or, you know, maybe STW needn't be a special exemption to the 'thread drift is allowed and encouraged' rule that permeates the forum.
  • Posted By: shreyasOr, you know, maybe STW needn't be a special exemption to the 'thread drift is allowed and encouraged' rule that permeates the forum.
    No, please. STW is useful precisely because it's concentrated external linkage, and because it spawns threads.
  • Why not go the other way: only ONE "reply," it it MUST be a link to a new thread? Or would that make for a bunch of threads that have one or two comments? (Probably, now that I think back on STW threads.)

    OK, how about letting it go to FIVE, and the fifth MUST be a link to a new thread? Or are we working from the "four shalt thou not count ... five is right out" principle?
  • Maybe the rule should be NO comments in the Stuff to Watch threads and the poster of the original item has to post up a link to a thread discussing the topic.
  • Andy asked us to stick to three, and post the fourth in a new thread. No revolution needed, no arms need to be flailed, no ones rights are being infringed. Seriously, is this controversial? I know I greatly appreciate the decreased chatter and easier link find-age.
  • Posted By: Clyde L. RhoerSeriously, is this controversial?
    Well, it was until Daddy came home and spanked us... :(
  • Posted By: JuddMaybe the rule should be NO comments in the Stuff to Watch threads and the poster of the original item has to post up a link to a thread discussing the topic.
    I would love this, personally. I read that thread for the links, not the post-link commentary.
  • Posted By: Clyde L. RhoerAndy asked us to stick to three, and post the fourth in a new thread. No revolution needed, no arms need to be flailed, no ones rights are being infringed. Seriously, is this controversial? I know I greatly appreciate the decreased chatter and easier link find-age.
    Agreed.
  • I think the three rule is great. People just need to know about it.
  • edited May 2009
    Instead of a "Stuff to Watch" thread, why not create a "Stuff to Watch" category, where people can post their "thing to watch" as its own thread? This would create many tiny threads, but if they are quarantined to their own category, people can choose to ignore it.
  • Alternatively, why not create a Vanilla forum where we can discuss roleplaying games? That might work really well.

    Graham
  • I would suggest that the "Watch" thread be stickied for the month it references and unstickied afterward. I also like the idea of no comments in it, just links in subsequent discussion.
  • I think the existing rule os good, but would suggest a point of Ettiquette--no double dipping. I've seen it happen: one person comments, then another, then the first one answers back, and bam! us latecomers are outta luck. Or alternately, the first commenter thinks of that ONE EXTRA THING they meant to say and wastes a second comment on it.



    Also: This thread seems on the verge of inadvertantly making a Big Fucking Deal out of a little issue, by meticulously scrutinizing it.

    Peace,
    -Joel
  • As a relative newcomer to SG, I was also always confused by the bracketed numbers in that thread, but recent discussion (including this thread) have enlightened me. So perhaps new rules were not needed, just this explanation of the existing ones.
  • I had noticed that some newer members of the board seemed confused by the procedures on the Stuff to Watch thread. I hadn't realized this would be such an unhelpful suggestion. Withdrawn.
  • Actually, Remi, I think a quick rundown of the rule (as they are, I don't think they need change) in the first post would make much sense.
  • Posted By: RemiI had noticed that some newer members of the board seemed confused by the procedures on the Stuff to Watch thread. I hadn't realized this would be such an unhelpful suggestion. Withdrawn.
    I don't think anyone disagreed with your suggestion Remi, we all just kinda (sorry!) ignored it to discuss the rule. I think having the three rule posted in the beginning of every stuff to watch thread is just tops.
  • Agreed. Remi's idea is a good one.

  • Hm, I think there should be the 4th post with the link (without the actual content), as is, if someone goes by the thread, he may not know a specific link had been broken into a post of its own. But otherwise, keep it.
Sign In or Register to comment.