TBAY/This list/combining posts

[gulplum]

Eileen replied to my previous comments with:

> And the fact is that TBAY as a category lives up to HPFGU
> standard for canon discussion. Specific TBAY posts may not, but 
> *any* post to HPFGU may not live up to the HPFGU standards. So, to 
> suggest that the category is any less valid because someone hasn't 
> followed the rules of the category is a non sequitur to say the 
> least.

Sorry to be call you on this, but I have been absolutely consistent 
in stating that I have nothing against TBAY as a "category". 

What I have been trying to put across is my perception that over the 
last two years, the concept has become increasingly cheapened, and 
the proportion of fluff in TBAY posts as a whole has increased 
dramatically. For instance, the last few TBAY posts I looked at 
included whole preambles which actually had nothing to do with the 
topic at hand. 

To put it very briefly, the metaphors of TBAY itself are beginning to 
take over from the metaphors of the theories being discussed. 

The reason why TBAY is an issue for debate for me is similar to what 
Shaun has been saying: whilst there are fairly frequent adminitions 
to members to trim quotes and use some form of attribution, there is 
no evidence that any effort is being put into keeping TBAY in order. 
I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but I've not seen 
any ADMIN messages advising TBAYers to curb their enthusiasm for 
flights of fancy, and to put it bluntly, "keep to the point".

I have other things to say about the quality of posts in general, and 
will say them in due course (yes, I have a LOT to say on that 
subject), but for the time being, we're talking about TBAY, and I 
agree with Shaun that a *perception* that TBAY is being "privileged" 
by not being reined in as much as standard discursive posts is 
perfectly reasonable (OK, it's a perception I happen to share, so I 
*would* say that, wouldn't I?). :-)

Incidentally, as there has been talk of a TBAY "primer" of some sort, 
I would suggest that the easiest and least cumbersome method of doing 
it would be for the Captains of the various vessels and other TBAY 
denizens to write up a short summary of their positions themselves. 
This would avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, and give each 
theorist the opportunity to use their own words and thus weigh the 
various components of their theories as they see fit. (A perfect 
example of what I mean is that the main MAGIC DISHWASHER explanation 
on the Fantastic Posts page comes from Grey Wolf).

I think that's my last word on the TBAY debate (although I reserve 
the right to return to the subject)  :-) as I think I've repeated 
myself enough already and don't need to repeat myself *again*. :-)

There was a question of what function this list should perform 
(sorry, I'm on web view and thus have difficulty referring to other 
posts, so I'm not quoting). IMO, the "welcome" message made it 
absolutely clear that the ADMIN team was not going to consider this a 
policy-making forum, but a consultative one.

I am a firm believer in intelligent market research and customer/user 
feedback. If you don't know that something's wrong (or perceived to 
be wrong - perception forms a great percentage of human interaction), 
you can't fix it. Of course, it's up to whoever is "in charge" to 
decide to fix it or not - people have a right to take their custom 
elsewhere if matters of importance to them are not fixed to their 
satisfaction. 

I therefore don't expect everything I've said (or have yet to say) to 
be taken on board and acted upon, but I know that I have at least 
highlighted my concerns. They might be trivial, and they might be 
concerns which others might not share, but this is a community and 
it's not a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship, with "those in 
charge" simply trying to help the largest number of people have fun 
while treading on the fewest feet possible. (urgh. Too many metaphors 
in there, I think.)

On the subject of combining posts. I have deliberately included this 
here to show one of the (potential) downsides of this convention. 
I've written a heck of a lot of words in this post already, and I 
suspect that a lot of people will either have given up reading it by 
now, or their attention is beginning to drift. Including too many 
topics in a single post is therefore perhaps not particularly 
advisable.

My own (usual) standard for combining posts is that if I have 
something substantive to say in one thread, and a short comment in 
another, I will usually append the short comment to the longer post. 
The same applies if I have short comments to make on two (or more) 
topics, or indeed to two (or more) posts on the same topic. If I have 
several paragraphs to say on two separate topics, I will post two 
separate messages. 

That is a result of my interpretation of the "combine posts"/"no one-
liners" rules. Of course, one-liners are a no-no, and I take that 
reasonably literally, i.e. more than one extended paraghraph is an OK 
post, less is not. 

Catlady is a perfect example of combined posts (sometimes, to be 
honest, perhaps she includes a few too many in each post) :-) because 
they are collections of (apposite and valuable) short contributions. 
I would not expect multi-paragraph contributions in several threads 
to be combined, partially for the reasons I outlined above, partially 
because it makes threading difficult, and partially because two short-
ish posts are easier to read than one long one. 

I suspect that this very post has made my point. :-)


-- 
GulPlum AKA Richard, who stands suitably admonished by the person who 
reminded us to sign posts :-)