Discussion vs Chat

[mark12_30]

I've been on the Downs for over a year, and I've been guilty of lapsing into chat more than once. It was the restructuring of the Downs that alerted me to the issue of bandwidth and focus, and that was a good thing.

Briefly, what I discovered was this: that although I'd met a lot of good friends on the Downs and we loved to yak it up ( [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) , nonetheless, this site belongs to the Barrow-Wight. He wants people to enjoy the site, true, but he also wants a good, clean, tight site. He's paying for it. And so if we make him miserable enough, he'd be entirely within his rights to shut it down, or shut us out, or radically change the rules.

Power generates authority, you know? Posession is 9/10 of the law... and the man in posession here is not any one of us minions, but The BW.

I'm glad and grateful that The BW works hard on this place, as do his trusty Mods. And he was generous enough to include this line on his opening post:

Often a post will require a short reply directed at the author, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as things stay on topic afterwards. Only when things move away from the true meaning of the topic is it truly lost.

In other words, slipping in an off-topic sentence won't mean rebuke or exile-- as long as the discussion RETURNS to topic in short order. I call that generous.

This is a privately run site-- and it's run with great patience and generosity. In effect, we are guests in the BW's private residence here, folks. Let's not forget that. If our host asks us to mind our manners, surely we can behave. If not, he is entirely within his rights to take whatever action he might choose, including requesting our departure or closing down the party.

EDIT:

I sit corrected on ownership of the Downs. See BW's dissertation on ownership, history and support here.

[ May 13, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]