I see, and you're right, I did not see the discussion from the one night that this was decided upon.
Seems like a poor decision, and reminds me of people who flee their oppressive countries to come to the US, to then try to turn it into the country from which they fled. Hyperbolic for sure, but not without any substance.
I can't speak for everyone, but I value the curation of the content here, and that I don't have to wade through nearly as much as was required on TDW for quality content. It also seems like relaxing this rule makes it easier for those who intentionally wish to undermine the movement to do so.
It's also worth noting that I am absolutely happy about more people coming to the board. The "popularity" isn't at all the issue here, nor is it the issue with what I brought up. The more people engaged, the better, I would never argue otherwise.
Specialization is an important aspect of this board. If it becomes too general, we will likely run into the same problems TDW is currently having, and history will be repeated.
I agree. But if it becomes more and more prevalent (as there is literally no end to content like this), other posts will become more and more obfuscated. And my worry is that once the flood gates are open, it will be very difficult to moderate.
I could be wrong, of course, but I see no good reason that GAW won't suffer the same fate of TDW, going down this road.
But you don't need to come at me like that. I'm just a pede.
Umm, this wasn't even remotely an attack towards you, nor was it even about you, not sure what made it read that way?
I was simply drawing an analogy to explain why I thought it was a poor decision, one that I never presumed you, personally, had anything to do with.
It's not worth the time to argue over something so trivial
Well, I don't agree with the characterization of arguing, but questioning and debating something should always be encouraged, because it's how we learn, especially since we don't see eye-to-eye on what is or isn't trivial.
I think you have mistaken disapproval with disrespect, and perhaps turned something impersonal into something personal?
I was only ever discussing the board policy and decisions made regarding it, and didn't make it about any personality until you brought to my attention that you believed I was attacking yours.
Certainly not "a dig" at anyone in particular, but a reason for an assertion.
I see, and you're right, I did not see the discussion from the one night that this was decided upon.
Seems like a poor decision, and reminds me of people who flee their oppressive countries to come to the US, to then try to turn it into the country from which they fled. Hyperbolic for sure, but not without any substance.
I can't speak for everyone, but I value the curation of the content here, and that I don't have to wade through nearly as much as was required on TDW for quality content. It also seems like relaxing this rule makes it easier for those who intentionally wish to undermine the movement to do so.
Maybe it's just me.
It's also worth noting that I am absolutely happy about more people coming to the board. The "popularity" isn't at all the issue here, nor is it the issue with what I brought up. The more people engaged, the better, I would never argue otherwise.
Specialization is an important aspect of this board. If it becomes too general, we will likely run into the same problems TDW is currently having, and history will be repeated.
But it's so easy to read the headline and then NOT click the link...
I agree. But if it becomes more and more prevalent (as there is literally no end to content like this), other posts will become more and more obfuscated. And my worry is that once the flood gates are open, it will be very difficult to moderate.
I could be wrong, of course, but I see no good reason that GAW won't suffer the same fate of TDW, going down this road.
I understand the sentiment and the argument for broadening the policy, I just don't think it will have the desired effects, as previously stated.
Umm, this wasn't even remotely an attack towards you, nor was it even about you, not sure what made it read that way?
I was simply drawing an analogy to explain why I thought it was a poor decision, one that I never presumed you, personally, had anything to do with.
Well, I don't agree with the characterization of arguing, but questioning and debating something should always be encouraged, because it's how we learn, especially since we don't see eye-to-eye on what is or isn't trivial.
I think you have mistaken disapproval with disrespect, and perhaps turned something impersonal into something personal?
I was only ever discussing the board policy and decisions made regarding it, and didn't make it about any personality until you brought to my attention that you believed I was attacking yours.
Certainly not "a dig" at anyone in particular, but a reason for an assertion.