(META) Staying on-topic.
<< I hate to be argumentative, Rascal, but you are wasting your own time. If you don't like it, don't read it. Change channels. >>
What is "staying on-topic"? To me it means trying to keep posts related to the stated focus of a thread. One of the nice things about SI is that users are free to start a new thread, so if you think a line of discussion has enough "mass" to warrant ongoing discussion, you can do that. It's also easy to find threads that might already focus on your issues.
SI relies not on staff policing but on the self-discipline of posters to respect the thread/focus model and to try to maintain a healthy signal/noise ratio on each thread. It also allows readers better granularity in deciding on a thread-by-thread basis, rather than message-by-message, what they want to read and what they want to avoid. This is especially useful since by-author filtering isn't supported.
Looking back over the couple of week's posts on this thread, IMO the Geraldo/Dimond posts, comments on NBC/CNBC's level of JFK & Hillary NY coverage, and comments to/about Ted and CNBC are "on-topic". Extrapolations about the rescue effort itself and its costs (aside from media coverage thereof), Clinton - liberal - Streisand -Kennedy - Diana - Fergie "jokes" and attacks, "royality", etc. aren't germaine the *this* thread, though there are many other threads where they would be welcome and apropos. OT should be the exception not the rule on a thread. When OT posts overwhelm on-topic posts it's a sure sign that a different thread should be found or created.
SI isn't going to come after you, and no one on this thread -- Rascal, Ted, me, anyone -- is in a position to make you stop posting. No one is taking away your 1st Amendment rights or trying to censor you. What would be nice is if you would support the SI thread system by focusing the content of your posts to the stated intent of threads you post in.
Thanks,
Mark |
