There is nothing that wrecks a good swimming related thread faster than getting into a discussion about message board etiquette. So here is a thread that people can use discuss topics related to what should and should not be posted on the message boards while allowing the other threads to stay on topic.
It seems to me that there is a spectrum of opinion on off-topic posting. On one end of the spectrum people think that threads are a mechanism specifically designed to allow people to carry on discussions on different topics and that we would all be well served if changes in topic were just done in new threads. On the other end of the spectrum people think that people should be able to post anything they want anywhere they want and that any suggestion to the contrary is censorship, a personal attack, or simply control freakish.
Pretty much everyone falls somewhere between these two extremes. Very few people object to a humorous quip inserted here and there in an otherwise serious discussion. Very few people would actually advocate that people be able to liberally sprinkle potentially offensive posts randomly through all the threads.
Have you ever been at a party where someone has decided that this is the right time and place to have a big argument or screaming match with someone? Has it ever contributed to the general enjoyment of the rest of the people there?
I would argue that posts that are essentially expressions of anger and/or are essentially personal attacks have no place on the board. They don't contribute anything positive and generally turn off 99% of the people reading the boards. Even if it seems that someone else has attacked you, does it really help anything to post an angry response?
I personally don't see the problem with starting a new thread when one wants to make an off-topic comment, a little cut and paste and/or a link makes it easy enough to carry the context into the new thread. Why is it essential to be able to carry on an unrelated discussion in a thread where some people are trying to carry on a discussion on a particular topic?
There are a variety of reasons why viewers do not post. In my case it is primarily lack of time. Arising before 5 am to swim (Not with a group for the past 16 years. I can understanding perfectly the need to connect with other swimmers), heading off to a full time and demanding job, attempting to maintain some sort of family and social life and assisting an aging parent does not leave much time for frequent or thoughtful posting. My time on the forum is limited to 5 and 10 minute breaks when I must get some down time at work. I don't believe that simply because someone is not a frequent poster means that they do not have a vested interest in the forum. That would disenfranchise a large number of non-posting viewers.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to seeing selected comments from my original post taken out of context. I had already stated that I liked getting to know fellow forum members through the non-swimming related discussions. I also said that it didn't have to all swimming, all the time. I said I had no problem with a bit of off topic conversation or humor. Yet I ended up seeing myself in the responses as an intolerant, humorless, swim-only robot. By golly, I sure didn't recognize myself!
Mentioning posters that you miss does not elevate them to demi-god status nor does it diminish those who have continued to post. I'm not sure where that implication came from. But I do think the forum would be a better place with the continued participation of Terry, Gull and Geek and anyone else who may have recently left in frustration.
What is frustrating for me is when I have a very limited amount of time to peruse the forum and encounter a long series of back and forth postings that are primarily inside info between the frequent posters. It's sort of like being on the outside of a clique looking in.
The point I was trying to make (and obviously I did it very poorly) is that there's a very large audience out here who do not post. But we must have an interest in the forum or we wouldn't keep coming back. I don't pretend to know the interests of all of the non-posting viewers. That was a poor choice of words on my part which will surely happen when you are forced by time to rush your own posting. For that I apologize. I guess all that I'm asking is that the rest of us non-posters be kept in mind when the thread veers off to, for lack of a better word, a more exclusionary clique-like nature.
There are a variety of reasons why viewers do not post. In my case it is primarily lack of time. Arising before 5 am to swim (Not with a group for the past 16 years. I can understanding perfectly the need to connect with other swimmers), heading off to a full time and demanding job, attempting to maintain some sort of family and social life and assisting an aging parent does not leave much time for frequent or thoughtful posting. My time on the forum is limited to 5 and 10 minute breaks when I must get some down time at work. I don't believe that simply because someone is not a frequent poster means that they do not have a vested interest in the forum. That would disenfranchise a large number of non-posting viewers.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to seeing selected comments from my original post taken out of context. I had already stated that I liked getting to know fellow forum members through the non-swimming related discussions. I also said that it didn't have to all swimming, all the time. I said I had no problem with a bit of off topic conversation or humor. Yet I ended up seeing myself in the responses as an intolerant, humorless, swim-only robot. By golly, I sure didn't recognize myself!
Mentioning posters that you miss does not elevate them to demi-god status nor does it diminish those who have continued to post. I'm not sure where that implication came from. But I do think the forum would be a better place with the continued participation of Terry, Gull and Geek and anyone else who may have recently left in frustration.
What is frustrating for me is when I have a very limited amount of time to peruse the forum and encounter a long series of back and forth postings that are primarily inside info between the frequent posters. It's sort of like being on the outside of a clique looking in.
The point I was trying to make (and obviously I did it very poorly) is that there's a very large audience out here who do not post. But we must have an interest in the forum or we wouldn't keep coming back. I don't pretend to know the interests of all of the non-posting viewers. That was a poor choice of words on my part which will surely happen when you are forced by time to rush your own posting. For that I apologize. I guess all that I'm asking is that the rest of us non-posters be kept in mind when the thread veers off to, for lack of a better word, a more exclusionary clique-like nature.
