Exactly. There’s no difference between my theoretical urban planning URL-and-quote messages and Tuckerfan’s similar aerospace-related posts. However, because mine deals with a niche topic, it’ll probably be more pit-worthy. However, it’s a subject that’s just as important to me as the space-related messages are to Tuckerfan.
If everybody posted five URL-and-quote messages about their favorite topics, the board would be a mess. If we decided that such posts are okay for “popular” topics, well … who decides what’s popular? Is it fair to those who are interested in topics that don’t have such a broad appeal?
Think Tuckerfan’s postings are just fine? Well, how about adding five juggling-related URL-and-quote messages a day from Opal, five Russian monarcy-related URL-and-quoute messages from Guin, some daily Bible lessons from our evangelical Christian users, links to Slashdot articles from the SDMB’s Linux geeks … well, it the becomes difficult to “just ignore it.” The SDMB is a discussion board, not the equivalent of a broadcast medium or RSS feed. Ideally messages should be posted in a way that fosters intelligent discussion among its members and guests.
Just IMHO, of course. Hey, if the powers that be decide one-way space and science announcements are okay, and those dealing with less popular topics aren’t, who am I to stop it?
If you, and others started doing that - yes, it would be a problem.
However, only a small one, really. Going on to page two of new threads isn’t that onerous an operation. Like Miller said, I’m not likely to read any such posts you make about urban planning, but feel free to knock yourself out posting 'em. Then again, I don’t read most movie related posts, or several other ‘general’ categories of thread in the fora I do frequent.
As someone who’s made OPs only to see them drop into the SDMB equivalent of the Marianas Trench without a peep (or even a single view), I can’t say I have a problem with niche audience posts. I’d just wish I knew how to make 'em more popular.
Oddly enough, this pit thread provoked my first visit to the mpsims board–it’s easy to avoid–and I DO believe the “m” stands for “mindless”, does it not? That said, it appears on casual analysis to set forth a category of posts that are almost guaranteed to strike some/many as a waste of time to read. (probably that’s why I never visited)
Look, a lot of people like Tuckerfan’s threads and think they’re a valuable contribution to the boards. Does there need to be better reason to let him keep making them? Sure, maybe (well, probably) your urban planning threads won’t get as good a reception, and you might even be asked to stop posting them if they’re not getting any sort of a response. So what? Not everything about this board needs to be lawyered to death.
If people only posted things which they thought that everybody would respond to, there’d be no posting at all, since each of us are interested in different things, and none of us are interested in every single thread that’s on the board.
Well, I think elmwood is trying to say that if he posted as frequently as you do on a less interesting topic, he’d be told to stop or pitted more succesfully than you have been here. While that may be true, it’s not a valid reason for you to post less frequently on space-related topics. But over all, I certainly agree that threads don’t need to be universally appealing to be valubale additions to the boards, and I previously said that I’d have no problem with elmwood’s hypothetical urban planning-palooza.
