I’m working up a poll. I’d like some input from each of you as to whether you see an option that correctly represents your opinion. If not, or if you see a needed tweak, please provide your preferred wording, or at least a detailed explanation of your concern.
My plan is to allow multiple answers, and to make the poll answers public.
Please let me know if you think anything should be changed, and if so, why.
Any and all reference to zombies is unfunny and/or unfriendly enough that it should be against the rules.
Zombie references should be tolerated only in combination with an actual contribution to the thread.
Zombie references should be tolerated only in combination with an actual contribution to the thread and a footnote explaining the joke.
Zombie references are fine, and there is no reason to ban them.
I might change my answer if I saw some real data/analysis showing that newbies are/are not being chased away by zombies.
I won’t give any answer in the absence of real data/analysis.
Zombie references are fine, and there is no reason to ban them.
They can be annoying, like the in-law who tells you the same story everytime you meet them. But, so what? There are lots of inside jokes here too, which also get overused to the point of annoyance. I just skim past them. (Shrug.)
For wishing to opine on the value/quality of the jokes themselves,there’s a thread for that. Please try to limit yourselves to the representative quality of the poll options here.
There are those who feel that an unexplained in-joke gives an exclusive/unwelcoming feel to the board, which may discourage newbies. I am trying to formulate a poll option to express that view.
It’s a subtle thing to convey in a few words. Suggestions regarding the wording of the poll options would be appreciated.
Someone found the subject matter/posts to be interesting enough that they chose to add to the conversation, regardless of the age of the thread.
Someone else found their own personal way of alerting the resurrectionist that they had responded to an old thread.
The fact that someone found an old thread to respond to means that they are perusing/searching this site for information, or for their amusement. Which sounds like a good thing. Someone else took the time to point out they were responding to an old thread. That sounds like a good thing, also.
Unless you want to write a five-page board rules addendum defining exactly how funny is funny enough (and to whom), and how that will be ascertained (and by whom), I suggest this is not a useful category.
Well, how about posting the explanation with one of those “spoiler” tabs so that people have the option of opening the tab and reading the explanation or not?
That needs refinement; I’m not sure what you mean here. People should not resurrect old threads? Running gags should be banned altogether? Discussion of whether Zombie jokes are good or bad should be banned? Polls should never be carefully planned, but viewed as offensive vaporware until posted and only then critiqued?
That needs refinement; I’m not sure what you mean here. Trying to use a poll to suss out popular opinion is a stupid idea? Resurrecting a thread is a stupid idea? Zombie jokes are a stupid idea? Banning in-jokes is a stupid idea?
That’s a very good idea. My only concern is that we’re talking about newbies here. As time goes on there will be fewer and fewer who are accustomed to Message Board formatting. Do you feel confident that they will know to click on it? Might it be even more annoying to board oldsters who go to the trouble of clicking only to see a (to them) boring explanation?