Faos Etc

[EcclesCake]

I've lost track of where this discussion has got to but is there any kind of plan to have a category for FAOs. It will almost certainly be abused but it is becoming a little tedious.

There are frequently threads directed to 'the experts' which don't take account of the expertise of others and are therefore self limiting. Particularly when there is a poster with more recent and pertinent experience.

And then there are the FAOs along the lines of 'Thanks Chumbawamba I've fixed it'

Not to mention the 'FAO Eric, are you about?'

Yes, you can avoid them but sometimes it is difficult to especially when they are in a specialist category rather than Chatterbank!

Please either a tightening/reminder of the rules or a 'Calling your Name' category.

[2sp_]

Love the analogy, Chewn!

(I'm happy being a Private.)

[Prudie]

"There is a problem that a few regulars believe they are the ENTIRE community - rather than a small element of it." my goodness Ed has hit the nail on the head. There is definitely less to join in with these days, especially if like me you are not very good at writing froth.
For the rcord I don't often join in debates in News and R&S but I think they are an excellent element of the site - and don't forget lots of us read even if we don't post.

[mrs.chappie]

As long as folk are not being abusive to each other, I can't see why it matters. You're never going to please all of the people all of the time. At the end of the day, 'tis only (mostly) idle chit-chat in Chatterbank.

[AB Editor]

"As long as folk are not being abusive to each other, I can't see why it matters. You're never going to please all of the people all of the time."

Yes, but we believe in trying to please the most people we can, most of the time.

We're not currently doing that as a community.

"At the end of the day, 'tis only (mostly) idle chit-chat in Chatterbank."

It's actually not - it's a series of in-jokes by and for a small group of users. We need the site to be "inclusive" rather than "exclusive" - especially areas like Chatterbank.

[boxtops]

I've just seen this thread, thank you Eccles for putting your head over the parapet and raising it, and to Ed particularly for the latest comment about in-jokes and a small group of users. It's sad when some of us have to filter what we look at for fear of seeing yet a group bouncing one-liners between a select few, which is a complete turn-off for the rest of us.

It reminds me of my cats. They suffer each other most of the time but as soon as there's a challenge, all three are on the same side. Challenge the exclusivity of some of these conversations, and you get rounded on by all of them.

I notice the FAOs are getting less - people just shout the name as a heading now, could be for that person or about that person, so I do feel the need to look. Private conversations about things few else understand are not doing the site any favours these days.

[jno]

if you have 100 people in a hall or at a party, it's only to be expected that they'll break up into smaller groups to chat, and some of them may stick with others they know and get on with. People can't be forced to mingle.

They can maybe be discouraged from rudeness toward newbies and other intruders but I don't know that banning FAO Sqad threads (he gets and kindly answers most FAO threads) will achieve this.

That 9+ page thread yesterday was quite unusual in its length and encodedness, so that nobody else knew what was going on. But it was probably a one off.

[mrs.chappie]

Thanks for that, Ed, I'm still baffled though, as to why it upsets some folk so much. It's only a website after all (soz Ed, no offence intended).

And if I'm reading your response correctly, most of the users are unhappy about such threads? Wow. I'm even more baffled than I was before. I'm just pleased I don't take it too seriously. Perhaps I should stay in more. :o)

[Psybbo]

Thanks trigger, as the 'offender' I'll have a look at that, pity I used to like it on here when it was friendly and fun.

[ummmm]

I really don't think anyone is upset about anything.

It's off putting so some people are posting less and some have stopped posting all together. I'm sure no one has cried about it..

[DTCwordfan]

so an anti-zany fun and some in-house banter.....interesting perspective for seeing the usage of the site from regulars drop.

Oh well.

Shame.

[jackthehat]

"Sack cloth and ashes......! Get your sack cloth and ashes, here!"

[horseshoes]

I posted a FAO thread yesterday for Seadogg. I asked for him specifically, as I wanted first hand information about Scarborough, and i was told he lives there. I consider that fair enough, don't you. I don't have a problem with FAO posts, whoever they are for. I don't find them cliquey, and if I did read one and knew the answer, I'd feel quite comfortable replying.

[Mamyalynne]

I think what was fun about last night's thread was the way it turned into a giddy round of nonsense despite the majority having no clue as to the reason it was posted. A page to turn over for some if not to their liking.

Equally it was posted by a charming Aber who does no harm to anyone.

[boxtops]

DTC, it IS a shame, but that's what Ed's saying in his post at 16.37

"it's a series of in-jokes by and for a small group of users"

That's why some users are obviously thinking that the site's not as friendly or open as it was in the past, if it seems to some as being a series of private conversations, joky/zany or not.

[sherrardk]

I don't mind FAO threads as long as they don't make others feel unwelcome or their advice un-valued. Can't be doing with coded, exclusionary threads - there are other ways to communicate on the Internet without using AB as a personal message system.

[boxtops]

mamya, I do like your analogy of the magazine - if you don't like it, you turn over.

[DTCwordfan]

newsflash - tony sitting outside Birmingham City Hall......

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gHfPa3BRuoM/Tm5fTpw3MEI/AAAAAAAAA-g/Odxa49Uxc-8/s1600/Sackcloth%2Band%2Bashes.jpg

[EcclesCake]

Zany-fun has, in my book, been a euphemism for *** humour that no other bugger understands. That may explain why I haven't seen any 'zany-fun'!?!?

Just using 'Zany' makes me think of Austin Powers!

[boxtops]

why is it Tony, DTC?