FAQ and Article Updates

I like Triss' suggestion... the revision seems.. well.. a little bit mean...

Edan wrote: I like Triss' suggestion... the revision seems.. well.. a little bit mean...

it's a damn sight more cordial than the original, which was essentially "TOTJO or GTFO"

Is cordial the goal?

Connor L. wrote: Is cordial the goal?

Why wouldn't it be?

Edan wrote:

Connor L. wrote: Is cordial the goal?

Why wouldn't it be?

I suppose I see "Cordial" and "Polite" as seperate....but If it were me....I would much more prefer to appear Polite, respectful and helpful over Cordial or Dismissive....Just me though...

Trisskar wrote:

Edan wrote:

Connor L. wrote: Is cordial the goal?

Why wouldn't it be?

I suppose I see "Cordial" and "Polite" as seperate....but If it were me....I would much more prefer to appear Polite, respectful and helpful over Cordial or Dismissive....Just me though...

Well to me I usually think of cordial as courteous.. so I guess polite is what I meant.

Connor L. wrote: Is cordial the goal?

I would like to remind you that this is the same Temple that keeps routinely reminding me it's not what I say, but how I say it that makes them annoyed with me. We can have a moment of silent reflection on the irony there, if you wish. lol

My point was that the original "In or Out" clause was worded very aggressively. This new one doesn't seem so bad, and it has the added benefit (unlike Trisskar's otherwise lovely suggestion) of not having to break our own rules about external links to other communities that are mostly none of our business.

They found us with Google, they can find the rest of them the same way.

Trope FTW. I always thought it was meant a bit light hearted, as supported by calling one of the people quoted as 'grumpy'.

The problem with being so stiff is that many people are surrounded by it, and well we all know familiarity can breed contempt, and often people are drawn to 'different' or funny and ignore stuff they think is banal. It can go the other way too of course, with people sensitive for whatever reason having a fearful reaction sufficient to interfere with their confidence to opening up. Sometimes banal is safer.

My point was.. perhaps the Temple's view is a very "in and out" thing. And, we just didn't have a good representation of that.

If our goal is to get people away who don't want to be here in the first place (even if they don't know it yet), a strongly worded cautionary remark is better than a subtle one, right?

steamboat28 wrote: and it has the added benefit (unlike Trisskar's otherwise lovely suggestion) of not having to break our own rules about external links to other communities

TOTJO has an external Community Link Page .... Which was what I was referring to.

*Shrugs*

In any case It was just a suggestion. Either way, the new version isn't bad, it just felt a mite dissmissive to me is all. Not a bad thing...I just like to be more "Lovely" as you point out