No-one else should post in a 'Ask Craig Questions' thread?

What do you think?

  • Total voters
    29

F

freamon

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
562
Hi. I'm thinking anything Pandora-related that someone needs to ask Craig about is probably going to be some kind of contentious issue. Whilst it's fun to dive in on these, it can end up as a bunfight where things get misinterpreted, the thread gets derailed, and it never resolves into a proper answer.


I'd much rather see a dialogue between 2 people - if there's some disagreement, it's easier for them to clarify their position, and more likely a proper debate could ensue.


And after all, we've got the rest of these forums for us all to yell at each other about these kind of topics.


Thanks for reading.
 
I agree. I've seen several questions "answered" with what other users assume.
 
I think bad idea, as if you want a personal conversation, you could just pm him.


Also he seems to just answer to threads he likes there, some are ignored completely.
 
mcobit said:
I think bad idea, as if you want a personal conversation, you could just pm him.
Click to expand...

True, but in the forum it's a personal conversation that other people can see. I'm often as interested in the answer as the person who asked the question.
 
right, so it'd have to be a section of the forum where anyone can start a thread, but only craig and the thread starter can reply


...is that even possible to enforce with forum permissions?
 
I wasn't thinking about the technical ability to do it, more as a convention we agree to follow.
 
mcobit said:
I think bad idea, as if you want a personal conversation, you could just pm him.


Also he seems to just answer to threads he likes there, some are ignored completely.
Click to expand...

Following up from freamon, it also means if several people want to ask the same question, Craig doesn't have to repeat himself
 
Didnt the last publishing of private conversations lead to the creation of this official forum? I'd agree it maybe best for just Craig to answer whats been asked, as and when he has time or inclination to do so. Even if its to simply say he's not interested in answering that question, in a hilarious way and just one sentence of scathingly cool prose
wink.gif
 
gfrancisdev said:
freamon said:
I wasn't thinking about the technical ability to do it, more as a convention we agree to follow.
Click to expand...

that won't happen, period :p
Click to expand...

Ha ha, I know what you mean, but I think we can be surprisingly restrained at times. There's threads that seem to have been started purely to provoke havoc, but they've never got traction because everyone's held back.


If there's no technical solution, it could be enforced by moderators I suppose (if this poll justifies it of course).
 
pmprog said:
I agree. I've seen several questions "answered" with what other users assume.
Click to expand...

It's been this way since the beginning, and it's led to a great deal of irritation, misinformation and conflict.


However well meaning, nobody should answer on behalf of the team, if no answer is forthcoming then at least there isn't a misattributed quote lingering like another time bomb.
 
This would negatively impact my endeavours and budding reputation as a smart arse. Though still working daily on the "smart" aspect, I've definitely gotten the "arse" down to a fine art. To block pointless and irritating replies would kill my aspirations altogether, leaving me eternally trapped as a juvenile and irksome cyberspace inhabitant.
 
The idea has its merits. Craig's section would then become a live FAQ, essentially.


This would have to be automatically enforced, as new forum-user ignorance will always make any other solution impractical. Dubious that the software supports it, unfortunate that we cannot code it in.
 
I think perhaps it would be best to establish a convention* that the question is asked and no one else posts on that thread until Craig has posted. Then it'd be as normal.


* Or try to anyhow.
 
Well, no-one can accuse me of not believing in democracy - I acted on the unequivocal results of this poll so far, and you know what? I think the sleep I had was all the better for it being the will of the people.
 
Put a vote in for "go to sleep" 'cause there wasn't an option for "but those with similar or extended questions can post." :p


There should be no need for a discussion to be fragmented into multiple topics just because someone else wanted to ask a question of Craig. My biggest gripe/irritation, relatively speaking, are those who post in question topics just to say unnecessary things, start asking questions too far unrelated to the original topic, post just to increase their post count, or say stuff like "this is stupid, close thread plz."


Personally, I'd rather see question posts pruned of unnecessary posts that don't add to the conversation.
 
Hmmm ... I see what you mean - it does have that as a downside. I'm sure there's some people who've disrupted threads in that section honestly thought that they were just extending the original question though. Also, sometimes it would be better if the question remained strictly defined - a purely technical query like 'is there a spec for a package manager to access your apps website?' would be better left at that, and not extended into a whole 'apps vs. repo / craig vs. milkshake / community spec vs. apps spec' drama.


In addition, I'm thinking that a 'no-one else posts' is an easier rule to follow / enforce - a moderator could remove a post without an argument whether it was relevant or not. It's all a bit moo at the minute though - the good idea / bad idea poll is 50/50.

gfrancisdev said:
I vote shoe on head :)
Click to expand...

But I've already got a shoe on my head. Always. Are you saying I should put a shoe on top of the other shoe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Phawx
For The Humor Impaired.
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
DeadName
DeadName
Back
Top