LL Off-Topic/Commenting Guidelines
This is just a reminder that OTFPOTD is still LL and thus LL rules still apply. These off-topic threads are meant to allow miscellaneous topics to be discussed with no real structure, but please remember that the Off-Topic threads were not started as, and are not meant to be, a chatroom. Self-policing of OTFPOTD's is fine and encouraged, but the mods would like to take a few minutes to reinforce that there are rules, and to remind you of what those rules are.
This has been in formation for some time now, so please, do not feel that these or any part of this applies only to one person. These are general guidelines that all people are instructed to heed.
NEVER ACCEPTABLE: Politics or personal religion. Our stance on this is more published than Joe Morgan's affinity for consistency; there is no politics discussion. No allusions to political figures. No partisan talking points or slogans. None. Don't even use the "No politics" tagline as a cover. There is a zero tolerance policy on this. Punishment will vary depending on severity, but repeated violations will result in a banning so that you will be motivated to join a political blog instead.
Also no chatspeak. NO chatspeak. NO CHATSPEAK.
REGARDING LIVEJOURNALING: What is and is not LL LJ needs some clarification, as the lines dividing an off-topic thread and a chatroom have been blurred quite a bit in the OTFPOTD. Off-topic threads are threads that almost anyone reading LL should feel welcome to participate in, and should not be a place where you communicate with friends about specific things only you and that friend know or care about.
An easy way to make sure others feel welcome is to tack a question on to the end of whatever you want to say. By making it a question instead of a statement, you invite other people's opinions to come along.
OKAY, BUT COULD BE IMPROVED: "I watched Crapping with the Stars last night."
The prompt, a tv show, is open to anyone, but instead, try phrasing it like this "Did anyone (else) watch Crapping with the Stars last night?" Making it into a question further opens it up.
NB: In the specific example of TV shows, however, keep in mind that not everyone watches shows as they are broadcast and some of us are in different time zones, so try not to say things like "Wow, did you see how Jimminy Gribble won Crapping With The Stars last night? That BLOWS!", because it's not certain that everybody in the thread has watched the show in question. It's just common courtesy.
GETTING CLOSE: "My job sucks. I had to deal with <Problem>"
This is likely narrowing the list of responders to people with similar experiences in a certain industry or field of work. You can open it up to everyone with a generalized question. "My job sucks. I had to deal with <Problem>. What's your worst work-story?"
A litmus test that I try to keep in mind is to imagine that I am talking to somebody that I just met five minutes ago. I wouldn't want to make a statement like "My job sucks." to that person. That's not conducive to conversation. By framing it with a question, I would encourage a response.
LL LJ: "I had roast beef for lunch today."
Nobody that matters cares. If you are that intent on gaining internet-based approval for your lunch choice, try saying something like "Wow - I went to the Delicious Deli and had the roast beef sandwich, and it's really good! What other sandwiches would I like if I liked that one?" This turns a bland statement of not-at-all-interesting fact into a topic for discussion that may be of some value to someone.
MOVING BEYOND THE PROMPT
The dangers do not stop after the first comment in a subthread. Be aware of the type of responses you give as well. Here are some completely made up subthreads that will hopefully provide an illustration. (LL does not condone any of the following activities except beer drinking)
ACCEPTABLE:
Poster A: So last night, I ended up killing a hooker. Was it wrong for me to go have a beer immediately afterward?
Poster B: What beer?
Poster A: Blah Beer
Poster B: Where'd you find that?
Poster A: Boring Bar
Poster B: Oh, I really like Awesome Ale there.
Poster A: Hmm, never tried that, but I have had Amazing Amber from that same brewery.
Poster B: Yeah? How was it? I've been trying to find that forever.
...
This is fine. The discussion is between only two people, but the topic at hand (beer, beers at a specific bar, beers from X brewery) is an open one. Anyone who's been to that bar, had beer from that brewery, or has an informed opinion about beer can make a contribution to the discussion.
GETTING NEAR THE LINE:
Poster A: I need a new book to read while sitting in the elderly seats on the bus, any suggestions?
Poster B: No, but what route do you take?
Poster A: The 666 between Hades and Douchebagville.
Poster B: Meh, I hate that route, too many white people. Oh, by the way, how did your tax audit end up going?
Poster A: They threw me in prison where I was violated by Arthur Rhodes and John Olerud.
Poster B: That sucks, sorry to hear it. Do you want to go throw rocks at homeless people Friday night?
Poster A: Made plans already to drown kittens. Maybe later, I'll call you.
(subthread ends)
This example illustrates a benign topic getting sidetracked into a personal back-and-forth that's of interest to only the two people involved. It becomes a closed discussion. This is inevitable at times, but by finishing the discussion within one or two comments and taking any further talk to another venue, we can limit how much it clutters up the thread.
OVER THE LINE:
Poster A: Hey, Poster B, hows it going?
Poster B: My foot hurts.
Poster A: Oh, ouch.
Poster B: Yeah, it's my curb-stomping foot too. I'm pissed.
Poster A: Too bad, wasn't last night fun though?
Poster B: Yeah, it sure was great having fun at that thing we did with just us and nobody else here.
Poster A: Agreed, we should make plans to do something else with just the two of us, and discuss them here on LL!
Poster B: Totally! What do you think about square dancing?
and so on...
This is two people chatting back and forth about a topic that isn't open to other people. It belongs in a private discussion whether that be in person, over the phone, e-mail, IM, facebook, Pony Express, twitter, smoke signal, etc, it belongs there and not LL. If you see this developing, keep it from going over the line and move it to a private forum like Poster A did in the "getting near the line" example.
OFF TOPICS ARE NOT A CATCH-ALL
If an event is forthcoming that you think more than one or two LL'ers would want to participate in (the football/baseball/bowling days are examples of this) make the information about that event its own diary/fanpost, and post details of the event in that thread.
If baseball news breaks, and is something more earth-shattering than the latest NRI by the Nationals, make it its own diary/fanpost. Actual baseball news belongs in places people can find it. This is important.
A NOTE ABOUT DRUNK POSTING
There used to be a certain novelty to drunk posting. As with any meme however, the more that it is used, the less funny it becomes. LL is notorious for killing the humor in any meme in record time and drunk posting has reached that point. That is not to say that it cannot still be funny, but it is now off the protected wildlife list. If it bugs the mods, it is going to be hidden. There's nothing wrong with having a beer or two and commenting, but if you're not sober enough to drive, you're probably not sober enough to post.
Following these simple guidelines as best as you can will help make the off-topic threads more open and inviting to others and more participation only means a better community. That's what we're striving for. If you have questions or concerns, e-mailing us is the best way to get our attention.
11 recs |
46 comments
Comments
I find it helpful if someone mentions the baseball news in the offtopic so I at least know something went down
but I definitely agree that those things need their own posts. This is acceptable, correct?
Along the same vein: It seems to me that offtopic posts are a good place to test the water for an event idea, and then when a couple of people agree on an event or a time, then it should become its own post. Does that work?
by Two Rs and Two Ls on
Jan 5, 2009 1:20 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Those are fine.
For the baseball news (of importance), a fanpost should be created. You can certainly then link to it from the off-topic.
by Matthew on
Jan 5, 2009 8:50 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just a request, here seems as good a place as any to put it
can we stop recommending every single one of the baseball-related front page posts around here please? Recs are good because they’re a nice way to separate everyday news from really interesting posts, or in Jeff’s case, witty fake banter, but when every single post on the front page is getting recs, you might be a little too lax on your standards
by seattlebruin on
Jan 5, 2009 3:03 AM PST
reply
actions
1 recs
You probably should have made this suggestion when more posts on the front page were rec'd
by Fogel on
Jan 5, 2009 4:22 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It doesn't help that recs have become a joke themselves.
Personally, if there was a way to do it, I say they should be getting rid of altogether. It encourages people to post stupid shit just to get the approval of a few people and that’s annoying. Posts should stand on their own merit.
by Goose on
Jan 5, 2009 5:02 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think recs are good because they mark something as memorable, whether it was funny, stupid, or a good post
both in comments and front page/fan posts. But when we’re rec-ing left and right, it loses all meaning
by seattlebruin on
Jan 5, 2009 5:12 AM PST
up
reply
actions
1 recs
I think the recs are less of a problem
than the constant mention of said recs. If you want to rec something, rec it, but don’t then post just to say “rec’d”. Seems a bit superfluous.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on
Jan 5, 2009 7:45 AM PST
up
reply
actions
1 recs
This is 99.999% percent correct.
Rec’d
Rec’d
Rec’d
Rec’d
Rec’d
Rec;d
Rec’d
Is bad
Rec’d for expecting Ryan Franklin wasn’t going to rape your season
Is funny and thus isn’t a problem.
by Robert on
Jan 5, 2009 8:36 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes. Rec'd is the equivalent of "+1".
+1 falls under chatspeak.
by Matthew on
Jan 5, 2009 8:47 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree, and not just because of the obvious bias.
For one, recc’ing front page posts doesn’t do anything. They don’t turn green or get their special section or anything; it’s essentially harmless. Two, this is a baseball blog. If anything should be recc’ed, it should be baseball-related posts.
by Matthew on
Jan 5, 2009 8:49 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't rec baseball related posts, just that I think we're getting to the point where anything remotely on-topic becomes rec-worthy
and I think it takes away somewhat from front page content
by seattlebruin on
Jan 5, 2009 9:21 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Might just be a sign of people's current level of optimism in the team.
Putting a rec on news of Zdurienciks latest move might be a form of tacit approval for some people, other than popping off with a “huzzah!” type comment. I’m just theorizing here.
Formerly dpseadvr.
by Kermit. on
Jan 5, 2009 11:52 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting posts should be rec'd so they don't fall off the front page
this is a baseball site, most of the interesting posts will be concerning baseball.
In fact, right now almost all of the pront page posts are baseball related an none of them have recs.
by JI on
Jan 5, 2009 9:05 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But these statements
There’s nothing wrong with having a beer or two and commenting, but if you’re not sober enough to drive, you’re probably not sober enough to post.
Are contradictory to some of us.
by NOLAmarinergirl on
Jan 5, 2009 7:18 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not sure who said this but they were right in saying "What's funny is funny"
If you haven’t been reading LL for long enough to know what 95% of us would find funny, you probably shouldn’t be attempting to be funny.
by Robert on
Jan 5, 2009 8:34 AM PST
reply
actions
1 recs
I think the mods are trying
to ensure that the site is accessible to and enjoyable for more than “95% of us”, though.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on
Jan 5, 2009 8:38 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I may be wrong but I think they are going for making it more enjoyable rather than accessible.
They likely lead very busy lives and thus can’t be bothered to babysit the site but hate to see it fall into disrepair.
by Robert on
Jan 5, 2009 12:25 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
but I get the impression
they don’t want it to devolve into a place where only eight people get the jokes, either…they want it to be enjoyable for everyone, not just those that are in on the joke.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on
Jan 5, 2009 12:37 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
LL should be more enjoyable AND more accessible.
by Matthew on
Jan 5, 2009 12:40 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Constant regulation of free thought makes this site more accessible?
by oc on
Jan 6, 2009 11:49 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Are you actually going to make a case that we're regulating free thought?
by Matthew on
Jan 6, 2009 12:12 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Discussing why your curb-stomping foot hurts is indeed free thought.
Like most here at the Landing, I wouldn’t care.
I just think ‘accessible’ is a poor choice of words.
by oc on
Jan 6, 2009 12:34 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Though all of these examples are using just 2 people
Am I right to assume that this type of thing:
Poster B: Yeah, it sure was great having fun at that thing we did with just us and nobody else here.
Would apply to multiple people? I’ve seen many instances where 3 or more people carry a long subthread containing nothing but information that only those involved would know. Doesn’t bother me much, but if it’s an issue when just 2 people do it then it should be when it is several people recapping something that not everybody was involved with?
HA HA HA, your Grandpa's an ASS!- Tourette's Guy (R.I.P)
by tootthekazoo on
Jan 5, 2009 8:34 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
3 is the same as 2.
The essence is that it’s of value only to a very limited subset of people. If we’re talking 20 regulars were at something and they want to talk about it, create it’s own fanpost.
by Matthew on
Jan 5, 2009 8:46 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thoughts on drunk posting
1) Oh god please stop
2) If you must, dunk posting is only potentially funny if the sap’s got dignity (or on occasion if the poster is Robert) and therefore would not be expected to post drunk. If someone is constantly drunk posting it gets sad.
by JI on
Jan 5, 2009 9:28 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
I would have stopped that list after #1 myself
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on
Jan 5, 2009 9:33 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Shouldn't drunk-posting only apply to Corco?
by spittle8 on
Jan 12, 2009 11:39 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Special notice
Saying “no politics” as an allusion to something political is political. Don’t do it. You will be punished.
by Jeff on
Jan 12, 2009 12:34 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
This should probably be edited into the main post somewhere.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on
Jan 12, 2009 1:05 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs







