Joined: May 2006
|Quote (keiths @ Mar. 01 2007,04:34)|
|Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 01 2007,01:31)|
|you are officially encouraged to use the uncommonly dense thread to post a copy of whatever you attempted to post on UD.|
There are some problems with posting "disappeared" comments on the Uncommonly Dense thread. That thread is generally for tard-mockery or for eliciting mouth-agape astonishment at the goings-on at UD. Run-of-the-mill serious responses to posts at UD don't really fit in. Also, it would be nice to have smaller threads dealing with one subject, rather than the motley carnival of tardity that's collected on the Uncommonly Dense thread.
Here's an idea I've been toying with that I'd like to float with Wes and Steve, the moderators:
Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it. Anyone who has been banned at UD or expects their comments to disappear could post them on the AtBC thread instead of at UD. After a while, word would get around that all of the interesting stuff was happening on the AtBC threads. Commenters at UD would start responding to comments made on the AtBC threads, and after a while they might even post directly to the AtBC threads.
This would be great, because a) it would create a place for genuine discussion of the posts at UD, where qualified, intelligent people could have their say, and b) it would put pressure on the moderators at UD to loosen up. They've got noone to blame but themselves. If they allowed dissent, people would post there instead of here.
If we created a new thread for each UD blog entry, then old threads would naturally scroll off the thread list as interest in them waned.
Question for Wes and Steve: Would you guys go along with this plan? And does the AtBC software have any limit on the number of new threads that could be created for this purpose?
"That thread is generally for tard-mockery or for eliciting mouth-agape astonishment at the goings-on at UD."
generally, yes, but other UD posters have used the thread to copy things that never made it there before.
In fact, it has often allowed us to locate the particular bit of ridiculousness that the "dissappeared" posts were intended to refer to.
that said, you have a point, and I suppose it would be just as well to simply have frustrated UD users post in a new thread.
"Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it."
we used to have that exact thing, but there was some issue where MasterTard believed that Wes' maintenance of that was interfering with their google listing, and UD "hired" a lawyer to send Wes a cease-and-desist order.
now, it was shown later that the copied threads had nothing to do with why UD was delisted from google, but the cease and desist order remained, and Wes thought it simply not worthwhile to challenge it (makes perfect sense).
so, I'm not sure how you would go about "automirroring" UD without running into the same potnetial legal issue that Wes did.
IOW, yes, you might argue "fair use", but would you be willing to risk that argument in an actual court? Is it worth it?
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."