h a l f b a k e r y"This may be bollocks, but it's lovely bollocks."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A self-explanatory proposal. Keep the idea, transfer the argument.
Overbaked
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/overbaked
Default rant-debate site. [RayfordSteele, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Hm. Dunno. It implies bakery authority deeming the conversation to move, and if/where it goes beyond the bakery is out of scope of bakery authority, I would think. It can be deemed stopped, by deleting the idea, but not moved. That part is voluntary. |
|
| |
And the mfd mark is there to be found later. I'm not sure why an mfr mark would need to follow that convention. |
|
| |
I'm still having some trouble grasping the purpose of Overbaked. I think it's a place to take conversations (such as the motel Darwin crap) that people don't want to see here anymore. Well if people don't want to see them here, they can just avoid reading the idea, no? |
|
| |
Just because this site frowns on rants, doesn't necessarily mean an alternative site needs to be provided for them to relocate to. There are, after all, plenty of user groups and sites permissive of, even devoted to rants. |
|
| |
(More practically, it also looks to me as though as the members of overbaked largely already belong to inglybinglydingly, thus making it an elitist extension of the latter site: the hoi polloi can play in overbaked, but not in the more exclusive IBD. In fact, it's not as though the hoi polloi are excluded from IBD. They let waugs and me in, for goodness' sake!) |
|
| |
It does give moderators a place to reference when asking that an out-of-scope thread be moved from "here to there." Something that was done frequently back when half-empty was still, well, half-empty. |
|
| |
waugs, it's more about preserving the 'bakery from becoming just another rant site, I suppose. There's gotta be a tipping point at which the bakery becomes more rantish / debative than creative, taken to the logical conclusion. Why not make it easy for them to go somewhere else, with a dedicated group that everyone here knows? That way they'll be more likely to relocate. |
|
| |
Anyways, it's just a proposal to the authorities that be; not an edict from on high. |
|
| |
Dr, you may want to obscure your reference a bit. (not that reference, silly...) |
|
| |
// There's gotta be a tipping point at which the bakery becomes more rantish / debative than creative, taken to the logical conclusion. // |
|
| |
I think it's a self-solving problem though. Those that are bothered by such things can (and do) (and should) simply choose not to read 'em. Even easier to do with the modern filtering capabilities of today's halfbakery... you can squeeze out the usual suspects if you want. |
|
| |
The halfempty.org references seemed to be more about an idea itself that was out of scope. Overbaked appears geared toward run-on discussions that form as a result of (conceivably) perfectly legitimate ideas. |
|
| |
(aside: 'tipping point' is this year's "think outside the box". I hate that phrase.) |
|
| |
Filtering is not frequently used by new members, who are more likely to perpetuate the problem, and thus over time, degrade the site quality. |
|
| |
But there's also run-ons that no one would want to see moved there, like the taglines, for example. |
|
| |
I guess to sell me on this, Ray, you need to elaborate more on that 'degrade the site quality' bit. These kinds of discussions have been going on since before I was a member here, and I guess I don't see the degradation. |
|
| |
I agree that the half-empty option was usually requested very soon after an idea was posted and before it gained momentum and mass. |
|
| |
Moving a pre-existing thread of any size is not really very possible. |
|
| |
And "tipping point" is pretty long in the tooth. I'd say it was more an expression of 2000 or 2001. Still useful, though, as it conveys a complicated concept in a very few words. |
|
| |
Wouldn't it be ironic of this conversation turned into one of those 'Oh god, can't they just let that die?' type of threads. |
|
| |
I usually don't want to filter an idea completely, I just don't want it to be the continual current hot topic. |
|
| |
Well, I suppose motel Darwin is a prime example. There is an idea in there, so we can't (or can we?) technically [m-f-d] it, but it's terribly rantish. New users who come in would therefore think that anything similar goes as fair game. The bakery is something of a planned community to some extent, and therefore the dandelions need to be kept under control. But that's just my take. |
|
| |
While I don't have much interest in continuing the motel Darwin conversation on jutta's space, I have had private requests to explain in further detail, which I'd probably reluctantly agree to. |
|
| |
Well, you could just post a link saying that a side discussion about the idea topic has been opened on overbaked and that your continued (perhaps reluctant) comments will only be added there. Or something like that. |
|
| |
Any other comments on how or whether if I should refine the purpose of Overbaked? It's sortof an evolving proposal. First it was just for sidebar debates and back-and-forth things, like perhaps the occasional troll education attempts, then it became a dumping ground for rants as well. One thing I've been pondering is this: if we create a space for rants, will that just encourage the rantish to stay and not reform? I suppose if it doesn't work, we can always delete the group. |
|
| |
Yeah, kind of like that evil-ghost containment vessel in Ghostbusters. |
|
| |
If someone keeps whining about unfair treatment, let 'em rant about it in overbaked, not here. If it's an out-of-scope (theology, for example) discussion, and the author can't be arsed to post it in alt.(religion - for example), the idea & accompanying discussion can be transferred as well. Simple. |
|
| |
voting seems to be going against the rush to enrol - very strange. |
|
| |
I intend to start a happy cuddle club - hah |
|
| |
Just the usual crowd round a traffic accident, I think. Besides, it took me ages to figure out how to unenrol. |
|
| |
// New users who come in would therefore think that anything similar goes as fair game. // |
|
| |
But it is fair game, isn't it? What was going on in "motel Darwin" (or at least what was up until I filtered the dickhead) seemed to be to be perfectly within the bounds of what's acceptable here. Not everyone's cup of tea, granted. |
|
| |
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it still falls. motel darwin is still going up. Or on, or down, or round in circles, depending on your perspective. (I filtered it long ago, but I review filtered ideas occasionally to see what's up.) |
|
| |
That's my point. I didn't want to see the discussion anymore, but it didn't have to be taken somewhere else to accomplish that. I just don't go there now. Solved. However I can only speak about the quality of the discussion up to the last point I saw it, and as of then it seemed bakery legit to me. |
|
| |
I guess my fear about this is, by implementing this idea, certain types of discussions are going to become off limits here and that can only be a bad thing. |
|
| |
Exactly. Expelling ideas because their annotations have taken a turn for the worse (as UnaBubba seems inclined to do with motel darwin) seems singularly inappropriate when that "delete" button is so handily placed next to each annotation. If off-topic or extended arguments are such a big problem, then maybe the admins should get involved in zapping wayward annotations. |
|
| |
Maintaining the site is not just about what you see, it's in what it attracts and how it changes over time because of that. Manure attracts flies. |
|
| |
I thought certain types of discussions were already off-limits here. Heck, even in IBD, I was chastised for spending too much focus on US politics. |
|
| |
Furthermore, I'm not advocating deleting the idea, simply moving the conversation elsewhere. |
|
| |