Makes sense, I guess.

Don't care one way or the other, personally. But I do think it's a reasonable rule. Don't get the drama behind some ppl being sooo upset about a little rule. Must be an atheist thing.

As a general principle, I think thread titles should give some reasonable sense of what the thread is about. In practice, I learned to also consider who made the thread.

The need for a rule saddens me, because I feel rules shouldn't be required for common courtesy. It's like those signs telling people to pick up after their dog. Really? You had to be told? But apparently some people prefer their own belligerence to being decent human beings.

---

(February 6, 2017 at 1:30 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: While I agree with the new rule, I don't care if it stays or goes as I think it will have a minimal impact, if any at all.

Minimal impact, indeed!

Even the poll makers have gotten woise. Sho me some excellence 'lready, guis.

Lemme fix this for ya

1: The clickbait rule is a sensible rule when up is down and left is round and your mom is underground.

2: Being restricted to having sensible titles hurts my left fuckin ankle like that time I shoved it in your mother. Let's cater to delicate little shits what tired of they mothers moanin in the mornin.

3: Hammie is sensible like a hornet nest stirred with a shit stick.

Kid, ya gotta be informative, loony, thematic, and self-flaggelatin if ya want any success with yer self-served polish sausage snoggin. Disparate polls always fail, they fail like Hilary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election:

Big league. It's what you gotta get.

(February 6, 2017 at 10:03 am)Violet Wrote: Kid, ya gotta be informative, loony, thematic, and self-flaggelatin if ya want any success with yer self-served polish sausage snoggin.

That's one hell of a line.

(February 5, 2017 at 11:45 pm)Aegon Wrote:

d/l'ed ... that shit's funny.

(February 6, 2017 at 9:54 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: As a general principle, I think thread titles should give some reasonable sense of what the thread is about. In practice, I learned to also consider who made the thread.

The need for a rule saddens me, because I feel rules shouldn't be required for common courtesy. It's like those signs telling people to pick up after their dog. Really? You had to be told? But apparently some people prefer their own belligerence to being decent human beings.

---

(February 6, 2017 at 1:30 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: While I agree with the new rule, I don't care if it stays or goes as I think it will have a minimal impact, if any at all.

Minimal impact, indeed!

Short term: Drama.

Long term: Little or no impact in the day to day running of the site.

(February 5, 2017 at 11:42 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think it's a bit unnecessary myself, but it's hard for me to muster any real concern one way other.

This is exactly how I feel about the rule itself.  The only concern I have is how other people are reacting to it. 

Personally I think it would be more useful to have a rule against misleading thread titles but not against vague, ambiguous titles.


So say if I start a thread titled "This is about God." And it's about my uncle Bob, that's a rule breaker. 

But if I start a thread called "He's a serial killer...." and it turns out to be a sideways look at the parts of the bible where god kills people, and is talking about god that's just a method of interesting expression, in my opinion.

I personally don't click on vague thread titles unless I have time to waste then I'll go back to the titles that were vague because I'll think fuck it, let's finally look at what that thread was about.  But it will be at the back of my to do list.

(February 6, 2017 at 10:50 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(February 5, 2017 at 11:42 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think it's a bit unnecessary myself, but it's hard for me to muster any real concern one way other.

This is exactly how I feel about the rule itself.  The only concern I have is how other people are reacting to it. 

Personally I think it would be more useful to have a rule against misleading thread titles but not against vague, ambiguous titles.


So say if I start a thread titled "This is about God." And it's about my uncle Bob, that's a rule breaker. 

But if I start a thread called "He's a serial killer...." and it turns out to be a sideways look at the parts of the bible where god kills people, and is talking about god that's just a method of interesting expression, in my opinion.

I personally don't click on vague thread titles unless I have time to waste then I'll go back to the titles that were vague because I'll think fuck it, let's finally look at what that thread was about.  But it will be at the back of my to do list.

lol, as different as we are, we have something in common besides guitar. The vaguer the title, the lower the priority, for me.

(February 6, 2017 at 9:03 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Don't care one way or the other, personally. But I do think it's a reasonable rule. Don't get the drama behind some ppl being sooo upset about a little rule. Must be an atheist thing.

Yeah, can you recommend anything for that?  I find myself hella disturbed by things like that all the time.  I'm always out on my front lawn waiving my fist and stuff.  (Please don't suggest hail mary's or that kind of thing as I don't know shit about football.)