Can we - even if only briefly - discuss stuff on AskMe?

May 17, 2004 11:38 AM

Can we - even if only briefly - discuss stuff on AskMe or not? This Sopranos thread started off as a question but the discussion of last night's episode was inevitable and almost irresistible. My own opinion, fwiw, is that it would be nice if a little discussion was indeed allowed or, as has happened already, generously overlooked.
posted by MiguelCardoso to Etiquette/Policy at 11:38 AM (10 comments total)

The fact is, drawn out conversations rarely occur on AskMeFi, and the site is better for that reason. Discussing discussion for the sake of discussion, however, can be done without, as you probably already know Miguel.

Let the site be...until it becomes a haven for chattery, like MeTa, allow it to evolve on its own without over-analysis and navel-gazing. Too much discussion will surely be the death of AskMeFi, because more posters will become overly self-aware.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:52 AM on May 17, 2004

it would be nice if a little discussion was indeed allowed or, as has happened already, generously overlooked.

It probably already does happen in minor ways and has been overlooked. Officially though it should be discouraged.

We're all human and wherever a boundary line is established we will make small trespasses across that boundary. But that is not an argument for moving the boundary.

Why do you feel the need to make this explicit? Why be so unsubtle?
posted by vacapinta at 12:12 PM on May 17, 2004

Can we - even if only briefly - discuss stuff on AskMe or not?

Can you? Well clearly, yes.
May you? No.
posted by jessamyn at 12:13 PM on May 17, 2004

Ha, I posted in the thread that I was hauling everyone to MeTa and Miguel actually did it. With a plea to allow such discussions to be overlooked! The self-negating MeTa post, patent pending:

"Look here: See this? Ok, this is what I want everyone to not look at!"
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 12:55 PM on May 17, 2004

"Can we - even if only briefly - discuss stuff on AskMe or not?"

No. Sorry.

Keeping AskMe very AskMe = A good thing
Making AskMe more MeTa = Not so good
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:04 PM on May 17, 2004

This sets a bad precident, so I guess I'm overlooking it after the fact. It's a pretty weak question that could be more useful to others as "where would one go to find analysis of popular shows like the Sopranos if one was having trouble understanding a plot line?"

It's better people don't chat up topics to no end like this, and will eventually need to be curtailed if it becomes the norm.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:04 PM on May 17, 2004

No.
posted by dg at 3:18 PM on May 17, 2004

With this, and the issue of jokiness in Ask threads, I think it depends on the question. Jokey & more fluid questions naturally lend themselves to a more chatty form, and my opinion is that Ask is stronger because of these threads. I also think it improves the morale over there, and people are more likely to pop over to Ask if it's kept informal. However, serious questions should have serious answers. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, and as long as it doesn't descend into anarchy, then MeFite pedants should keep quiet.
posted by seanyboy at 11:59 PM on May 17, 2004

I agree, seanyboy. Hard and fast rules are unnaturally limiting. To ask "is it okay to be chatty in AskMe?", well the answer would obviously have to be "no", but plain common sense and the slightest insight to how the community works will lead one to understand that, on occasion, it's okay and beneficial. How do you formulate a "rule" for this? Asking for a judgment is like demanding a more restrictive policy. If you are looking for a pass to chat in AskMe, you're not going to get it. If you use your noggin and don't abuse the venue, a bit of chattiness in the odd lighthearted thread is not going to result in cataclysmic repercussions.
posted by taz at 1:37 AM on May 18, 2004

Why do you feel the need to make this explicit? Why be so unsubtle?

because people jump on miguel when he does it, but not on others?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:51 AM on May 18, 2004