Dicussion on the current rule against the use of DD DS DH ect

Sleepy

I'd agree with Ludo. As a dad of a 1 1/2 year old and step-dad to a 4 year old, I'm interested in the toddler areas but it's great to read the threads on older kids and teens to get a 'heads up' as to what I've in front of me and perhaps see potential results of certain parenting styles.

One other point - could we append the txtspk part of the charter to include the silly acronyms that sometimes pop up in here from the more frivolous parenting sites? E.g. DD, DS, DH etc.? Maybe it's just me but such vapid language depreciates the points being made.

Nevyn

It is in included as text speak if you see it report, I often warn people about it and edit posts.

The new born threads were happening in the pregnancy forum which is why there is a new subforum for those and who have created a community in the pregnancy forum to
move into that forum.

The forum keeps growning and new threads were getting knocked off the front page very quickly even at 40 a page. You can you know subscribe to the subforums the same way as you do the main forum.

Khannie

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is in included as text speak if you see it report, I often warn people about it and edit posts.

I disagree that it is text speak. It is very clearly an acronym which is distinct from the not so gr8 txt spk. Just my 2c. You can't prevent acronyms!

simu

Khannie wrote: »

I disagree that it is text speak. It is very clearly an acronym which is distinct from the not so gr8 txt spk. Just my 2c. You can't prevent acronyms!

Agreed - they are useful acronyms. I will continue to use them, dbs (dear boardsies).

nesf

Khannie wrote: »

I disagree that it is text speak. It is very clearly an acronym which is distinct from the not so gr8 txt spk. Just my 2c. You can't prevent acronyms!

I would take a similar view.


Suck it up Sleepy!

simu

nesf wrote: »

I would take a similar view.


Suck it up Sleepy!

That's my dh.

Nevyn

dbs = Decibels.

Nevyn

I am vehemently opposed to them.
They exclude newcomers, they have never been allowed here even if they are the standard else where.
The point of this forum was that it was not like those other sites.

nesf

Thaedydal wrote: »

dbs = Decibels.

dB is decibel, not db. Similar to how mA is milli-Ampere not ma.

Deliverance

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am vehemently opposed to them.
They exclude newcomers, they have never been allowed here even if they are the standard else where.
The point of this forum was that it was not like those other sites.

I agree with these points in the context of the parenting forum. A parent looking for advice as a new user may very well be slightly put off or confused by the use of shorthand internet text by experienced users.

I still don't know what all the DD, DS stuff is about, to be honest I don't want to know either as I find it annoying for some reason. Harmless but still annoying.

It is after all just another form of 'txt speak', 'Forum / internet speak' if ya like.

caprilicious

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am vehemently opposed to them.
They exclude newcomers, they have never been allowed here even if they are the standard else where.
The point of this forum was that it was not like those other sites.

I agree, its the one thing I find a major turn off in other parenting forums. Nothing worse than having to decipher abbreviations & text speak!

I have to say I love the new forum (Newborns/toddlers), maybe its just me - I found that I loved the pregnancy forum, but once I had baby there wasn't a similar forum here with the same banter.
The Parenting forum had multiple threads relevant to much older children so not relevant to me (yet!).

The Newborn & toddler thread allows the continuation of the banter from the pregnancy forum & a way to keep in touch with the mums & dads from there which would otherwise be diluted I think in the larger parenting forum

Khannie

Thaedydal wrote: »

They exclude newcomers

You could say the same about ROFL, yet it is allowed here.

Thaedydal wrote: »

The point of this forum was that it was not like those other sites.

Surely we can differentiate ourselves from other forums without restricting the use of specific acronyms (while allowing others!!!).

Again, I am yet to hear a reasonable point put forward for why we should allow one set of acronyms but not another.

edit: For the record; I don't like DD, DS blah blah either and I'm perfectly ok with other (more geeky) acronyms like lol, rofl, etc. But I just can't see how banning them is reasonable.

Nevyn

That has never been the way this forum has been run, it was a conscious decision to differentiate from those sites and their ethos. We have never had anyone ask for it to be allowed mostly when they are mentioned they are as the posts above people saying they don't want them and being glad they can using a parenting forum/site which out having to read posts which are frankly riddled with them as every 3rd or 4th word.

Nevyn

Posts moved from the feedback thread as this seems to be a topic which isn't going away.

Khannie

So...can someone put forward a coherent argument for allowing some acronyms (e.g. lol) but disallowing others (e.g. dh)?

I had posted this in the other thread:

Thaedydal wrote: »

They exclude newcomers

You could say the same about ROFL, yet it is allowed here.

Thaedydal wrote: »

The point of this forum was that it was not like those other sites.

Surely we can differentiate ourselves from other forums without restricting the use of specific acronyms (while allowing others!!!).

Again, I am yet to hear a reasonable point put forward for why we should allow one set of acronyms but not another.

edit: For the record; I don't like DD, DS blah blah either and I'm perfectly ok with other (more geeky) acronyms like lol, rofl, etc. But I just can't see how banning them is reasonable.

Sleepy

My main argument would be that they make the poster sound like such a simpering twit I just can't take their post seriously when they use them.

edit: why is it reasonable to ban these acronyms but not others? I'd argue that it keeps the ethos of the forum one of sensible advice and discussion rather than giggling nonsense (like some of the other parenting sites like RC etc.) which are so 'girly' they're off-putting for any man and, for want of a better description 'pink girly' women.

OS119

Sleepy wrote: »

My main argument would be that they make the poster sound like such a simpering twit I just can't take their post seriously when they use them.

yeah, its vommit inducing.

its also pretty redundant - does anyone actually think that i don't love my family as much because i just use 'daughter' and not 'DD', or even that if they don't use 'DD' other people will think they are describing something that, to them, has little more emotional value than 'car keys', or 'remote control'?

vommit inducing tripe, a true sign of the emotionally and educationally sub-normal!:D

Khannie

OS119 wrote: »

does anyone actually think that i don't love my family as much because i just use 'daughter' and not 'DD'

Not in the slightest. The same way that I'm not actually rolling on the floor laughing when I type ROFL. I just see dd as shorthand for "daughter".

ash23

I don't go around calling my daughter, my darling daughter or whatever. But I do use dd on other forums as it's quicker.

Also why can we use OH for other half, but not DH (darling husband).

Would LO (little one) be acceptable? But I suppose it doesn't indicate the sex of the child.

Daughter is a long word to type over and over in a post.

Ludo

Sleepy wrote: »

My main argument would be that they make the poster sound like such a simpering twit I just can't take their post seriously when they use them.

edit: why is it reasonable to ban these acronyms but not others? I'd argue that it keeps the ethos of the forum one of sensible advice and discussion rather than giggling nonsense (like some of the other parenting sites like RC etc.) which are so 'girly' they're off-putting for any man and, for want of a better description 'pink girly' women.

^^^ This sums up the my opinion nicely.

There has always been a nice blend of male and female posters here unlike on other sites. I would like it to stay that way. This is just a personal opinion obviously but I also feel if posts become riddles with these acronyms it will be off-putting for men.

This next bit is off topic I know and being dealt with elsewhere (but it is related).
This balance of male/female input is also another reason why I feel the newborn/toddler subforum is not helpful. The pregnancy forum is female oriented by its very nature (just a guess there as I have never read it to be honest). The new sub-forum seems to have been created for active posters there to have a place to keep their group together instead of integrating with the existing forum and it will therefore become a lot more female oriented than the main forum. Sorry about continuing this topic here but I do feel it is relevant to the discussion.

I can't remember the last time I looked at RC it has been so long. But I visit here multiple times a day and I would prefer not to see it lose its nice balance. There is a strong risk of this happening now however.

Khannie

Ludo wrote: »

There has always been a nice blend of male and female posters here unlike on other sites. I would like it to stay that way. This is just a personal opinion obviously but I also feel if posts become riddles with these acronyms it will be off-putting for men.

Ok, that's a fair point and I do agree with it. I can't see a man using DD much and I do like the balance here.

Ludo wrote: »

This next bit is off topic I know and being dealt with elsewhere (but it is related).
This balance of male/female input is also another reason why I feel the newborn/toddler subforum is not helpful. The pregnancy forum is female oriented by its very nature (just a guess there as I have never read it to be honest). The new sub-forum seems to have been created for active posters there to have a place to keep their group together instead of integrating with the existing forum and it will therefore become a lot more female oriented than the main forum. Sorry about continuing this topic here but I do feel it is relevant to the discussion.

I can't remember the last time I looked at RC it has been so long. But I visit here multiple times a day and I would prefer not to see it lose its nice balance. There is a strong risk of this happening now however.

Another fair point.

bogtotty

OS119 wrote: »

vommit inducing tripe, a true sign of the emotionally and educationally sub-normal!:D

A little over-the-top, don't you think? When I type 'DD' I am not thinking 'darling daughter', I'm thinking 'daughter'. I have no emotional investment in the acronym, nor am I incapable of spelling or typing the word 'daughter'. I am simply using a widely recognised shorthand. I am certainly not 'subnormal' and would prefer if your argument here did not extend to insulting fellow boardsies.

I can see the argument for discouraging the use of codes and acronyms though. I have been guilty of using them here and was edited by Thaedydal for doing so. I have managed to not use them since then with the exception of the occasional slip. However, I don't think a user should be banned for using acronyms, unless they are particularly obstinate about not using real words. Three strikes and you're out for new users, sharp reminders to regulars who don't usually use acronyms, and banning for unapologetic repeat offenders would be a fairer way.

Some codes are more useful than others (ttc being one example which is lengthy and can spring up a number of times in one post) - perhaps these could be left alone? If there is to be a blanket ban, it should also include 'standard' web acronyms like ftw, lol, tmi - these are as annoying (and cryptic) to newer users and should not be treated any differently to parenting-specific acronyms.

Ludo

bogtotty wrote: »

I can see the argument for discouraging the use of codes and acronyms though. I have been guilty of using them here and was edited by Thaedydal for doing so. I have managed to not use them since then with the exception of the occasional slip. However, I don't think a user should be banned for using acronyms, unless they are particularly obstinate about not using real words.

I agree people should not be banned for it...their use should be discouraged though.

bogtotty wrote: »

Some codes are more useful than others (ttc being one example which is lengthy and can spring up a number of times in one post)

Sorry, but I gotta ask...what does ttc stand for?
*edit* never mind...It twigged with me when I went back to the forum page and saw the sub-forum

ash23

There are loads of acronyms used on here though.

Imo, fwiw, OH, IMing ,gf, bf, bff, lol, rofl, imho, ....I could go on all day.

When I started using forums first I hadn't a clue what most of them meant. 2 seconds on google soon informed me.

I've never seen anyone complain about the ones above. So why dd, ds, dh? Is it the "sweet and sickly" aspect of them (which I hate but it's necessay to distinguish them from random letters).


I don't use dd on here as I know it's not liked. I think I've used LO though. Will I be banned?

Nevyn

Sleepy wrote: »

I do think this will discourage me, and other men, from posting here tbh.

Hell it would discourage me from posting here never mind modding.

Sleepy

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hell it would discourage me from posting here never mind modding.



Can we please move that dicussion back to the feedback please.

Sorry. Can you move the post? Or is it easier if I just delete that post and re-post there?

Khannie

Well....It seems that there are 2 camps:

Those who really dislike it
and
Those who don't really see the logic of allowing a subset of acronyms but don't care that much

On those grounds I'd just propose that we press on as we are (i.e. that they are not allowed)....Any major objections to that?

Personally I would rather that the people who it might bug don't get bugged. The cost of having them fairly heavily outweighs the benefit of having them in other words.

nesf

I'd suggest we take the approach of them being tolerated but not encouraged. So posters don't get sanctioned for using them but equally we don't encourage people to indulge in their use.

Khannie

I think that will inevitably result in their eventual widespread use and loss of regulars and possibly as Ludo and others pointed out a reduction in the male population (one of the reasons I wouldn't go near RC).

Having read all the points in here I think the benefit of having them is (very) low while the cost of having them may be (very) high and nobody seems to really feel very strongly that they're important.

Das Kitty

Personally I don't have any problem with there being shorthand acronyms for sons and daughters, but there is something about DS and DD that set off my cringe monitor.

I also hate the pregnancy ones; BFP (Big Fat Positive), BFN (Big Fat Negative) that you see on other sites. They're really cringey.

Boards in general has veered away from twee graphics and flashy sigs and the reams of terrible smilies you see on other sites, and I would put these in the same category.

I really can't imagine being with a group of my friends going on about my Dear or Darling Son. They'd probably be requesting the sick bucket.

bogtotty

Das Kitty wrote: »

I really can't imagine being with a group of my friends going on about my Dear or Darling Son. They'd probably be requesting the sick bucket.

Those of us who use these acronyms generally don't go around saying dear/darling son/daughter or whatever. Just as I would hope that those who use lol etc don't say "laugh out loud" when responding to their friends' jokes down the pub. Otherwise it wouldn't be a sick bucket that was being requested but a heavy blunt object.

Das Kitty

bogtotty wrote: »

Those of us who use these acronyms generally don't go around saying dear/darling son/daughter or whatever. Just as I would hope that those who use lol etc don't say "laugh out loud" when responding to their friends' jokes down the pub. Otherwise it wouldn't be a sick bucket that was being requested but a heavy blunt object.

Oh I know! But that's my point you'd never say darling son, but you may say "I laughed out loud" or in fact actually laugh aloud at a joke. You probably wouldn't roll on the floor of the pub though, a bit sticky!

littlebug

I came across the whole dd /ds thing 8 years ago on American parenting websites. I don't (think I ) use them but nor do they bother me particularly. I can see how people could get into the habit of using them but I wouldn't see it as a punishable offence. txtspk drives me nuts but I don't wouldn't see them as the same thing at all.

As an aside I'm pretty sure I've lolled in real life.

simu

Do I detect a hint of misogyny in all this hatred of d- acronyms and condemnation of other parenting sites? :-p

Deliverance

An example:

My DD went out today with my DH, we LOL all day. The DD did something so funny that I ended up RMAOL (rolling on floor laughing or something) never could get that one right: it was so LOL. FYI I am not a WUM I am a regular internet user and not a Troll I am aware though of the acronyms and stuff that goes down with the net language.

Sometimes the shorthand stuff can be hard to decipher, when I see a person using lots of it then I tend to slightly ignore posts i.e. personally I have a little less respect for these posts as a more mature person with kids i.e. a parent.

I can get the shorthand due to the context and all that but I still use, prefer to actually write verbosely because it is simply better for me and it is no harm really.

As khannie implied well: for future reference this type of shorthand may lead too to much shorthand stuff which could potentially end up like phone txt type speak and that was the point that had to be taken on board. Theayadal led the call well. I'm glad that Khannie progressed in a learning type way and changed his opinion after some thought.

I find that an impressive and encouraging trait in a mod.

Personally I think that as others put it, that it is not a huge issue it should be tolerated to a point but if posters start using the 'acronyms' a lot to the point of making the forum more exclusive to experienced users then that could be a problem.

I think though that what has been done so far is more than enough to make the point. Not the biggest of issues but still nicely argued out via debate. I think the nay to text speak party are winning in this case though;)

Deliverance

simu wrote: »

Do I detect a hint of misogyny in all this hatred of d- acronyms and condemnation of other parenting sites? :-p

In once sense that could be conceivable but I think that a better point is being put across with regards to quality of service.

Khannie

simu wrote: »

Do I detect a hint of misogyny in all this hatred of d- acronyms and condemnation of other parenting sites? :-p

Not in the slightest. I just like the comparative balance here.

lindtee

I would use the other site mentioned here, and to be honest the use of dd,ds,dh etc really annoys me. It just sounds so silly. I don't use those acronyms myself. In fact in the past I have posted a few threads on the other site about how I hate them but I never got much support:(:(

Nevyn

I've just had to point out in the pregnancy forum that NMH = National Maternity Hospital = Holles Street! after getting a pm from a poster who was confused by it

I have never infracted or banned for it, I have always just asked can posters please not use it and occasionally edited posts, I have to say you lot have been wonderful about it and I have never had snotty pms or guff back when I have asked.

simu wrote: »

Do I detect a hint of misogyny in all this hatred of d- acronyms and condemnation of other parenting sites? :-p

They are a different style of site and are stand alone sites, the idea for this forum was that boardsies no matter what forum they joined up to use or which forums they are a memeber of the community may one day wish to or find they are going to be parents
and will want to get help and advice from other boardsies.

Yes we have had people sign up to here first and foremost and some of them have been happy to see that this forum is different from some of the other sites which tend to be female dominated.

I don't see how not liking those sites equates to hating women :P

Ickle Magoo

The DS, DD, DH thing doesn't really bother me in terms of understanding because I've posted on other parenting sites & I know the majority of the short-hand used but on other sites it has certainly gotten to the stage where stickies are required with a list of the short-hand and acronyms in most common usage and for new posters, that must be a huge turn off.

One of the reasons I like boards parenting forum is it takes the best of helpful, friendly, informative parenting sites while managing to steer well away from the horrible cliques and over-moderation, often self-moderation of anything approaching an honest discussion combined with an under-moderation of bitchiness and bullying.

If staying well away from the pet colloquialisms of those kind of sites means this one stays as is, open to all to contribute and easily read by all, then I'm all for a ban on them. *thumbs up mods*

I'm a woman, with a daughter, so I hope the above is not construed as misogynistic. :eek:

LashingLady

Thaedydal wrote: »

I've just had to point out in the pregnancy forum that NMH = National Maternity Hospital = Holles Street! after getting a pm from a poster who was confused by it :P

I was a poster on that thread so saw the correction. The only thing I noticed is that all the terms that had been abbreviated in that particular thread: NMH, CS, VBAC etc had all been written in longhand earlier in the thread, albeit without putting the abbreviation in brackets directly afterwards.

I know that this one is difficult to strike a balance but I think it would be very ambitious to expect that newcomers to a parenting would be able to understand everything straightaway and that doesn't just apply to acronymns. For example some one might have to ask what meconium or colostrom means if they are just mentioned in a thread without prior explaination. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would feel excluded though

Just my two cents:)

Nevyn

Thing is those are medical terms and anyone who goes through the process of having a baby ends up having to learn a hell of a lot but those terms are standard in the world until dd ds ect and with there being such a learning curve I don't see why we should be adding to it.

parsi

Sleepy wrote: »

My main argument would be that they make the poster sound like such a simpering twit I just can't take their post seriously when they use them.

edit: why is it reasonable to ban these acronyms but not others? I'd argue that it keeps the ethos of the forum one of sensible advice and discussion rather than giggling nonsense (like some of the other parenting sites like RC etc.) which are so 'girly' they're off-putting for any man and, for want of a better description 'pink girly' women.

+1 - they are annoying affectations and for me always conjure up an image of a poster who is determined that her (!) child and her (insert anything else) is always right and whoever can't see that must be clueless, a troll, a bully , a supporter of bad things.

simu

Thaedydal wrote: »

Thing is those are medical terms and anyone who goes through the process of having a baby ends up having to learn a hell of a lot but those terms are standard in the world until dd ds ect and with there being such a learning curve I don't see why we should be adding to it.

These terms are part of online parenting culture now and tbh, it's a bit patronising to think new parents would find them a huge challenge.

parsi wrote:

+1 - they are annoying affectations and for me always conjure up an image of a poster who is determined that her (!) child and her (insert anything else) is always right and whoever can't see that must be clueless, a troll, a bully , a supporter of bad things.

Did you ever think you might be wrong in your perception? Do you really think the thousands of parents who use those acronyms on other Irish and international parenting forums are like that?

Ickle Magoo wrote:

If staying well away from the pet colloquialisms of those kind of sites means this one stays as is, open to all to contribute and easily read by all, then I'm all for a ban on them.

Excessively rigid rules on the use of well known acronyms will alienate people. Think about it... you post here looking for advise on some child-related problem and when you return, instead of finding helpful answers, you find you have been admonished for using "dd" or "ds" or had you post edited.

All sorts of acronyms are used frequently all over boards.ie - why pick on parenting acronyms because some users find them too cutsey for their taste?

Nevyn

simu wrote: »

These terms are part of online parenting culture now and tbh, it's a bit patronising to think new parents would find them a huge challenge.

I don't think they are an online standard at all and even if they seem to be I don't see that as a valid reason why they have to be a standard here.
I see it as a dumbing down this forum does not need and this place as a safe haven for those who can't stand them.

simu wrote: »

Did you ever think you might be wrong in your perception? Do you really think the thousands of parents who use those acronyms on other Irish and international parenting forums are like that?

I have seem some awful bullying on 3 sites which use them and for me the use of them reflects the tone of the site and the attitude of those using them and this forum is not the same as those stand alone parenting sites.

simu wrote: »

Excessively rigid rules on the use of well known acronyms will alienate people. Think about it... you post here looking for advise on some child-related problem and when you return, instead of finding helpful answers, you find you have been admonished for using "dd" or "ds" or had you post edited.

I think that is unfair, the majority of posters will always try and be helpful and friendly and I have never seen any poster round on anyone for using those codes.

simu wrote: »

All sorts of acronyms are used frequently all over boards.ie - why pick on parenting acronyms because some users find them too cutsey for their taste?

This forum is not like those other sites, if you wish to use those others sites fine, knock yourself out, but here is not there and it has never been and I don't think it's fair to demand that this forum conform to what is the standard elsewhere esp when it will alienate posters and members of the community here.

If the over whelming majority of posters wanted those codes and if I was out voted by the rest of the mods of this forum then I would resgin and let people have the forum they want, but do we need a forum which is a clone of those other sites?

I asked for this forum to be set up as I could not bear the other online irish parenting sites. Mind you these days I find my personal questions and discussions are mostly on sites with pertain to parenting children on the autistic spectrum but I still try and be as active and helpful here as I can.

cbyrd

i HATE text speak... i cannot understand it.. it's slows me down.. call me old fashioned but i love to read and i like to understand what i'm reading..:D
when i first started reading posts here i was like a wally wondering what dd ds dh was even oh caught me out had to ask my husband... needless to say i got rollie eyes..
my older brother who has a 17 year old step-daughter texts me in text speak... it takes me ages to decipher it and usually send it back with please translate on the end of it..:rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

simu wrote: »

Excessively rigid rules on the use of well known acronyms will alienate people. Think about it... you post here looking for advise on some child-related problem and when you return, instead of finding helpful answers, you find you have been admonished for using "dd" or "ds" or had you post edited.

Who said anything about excessively rigid rules? When someone posts in text speak they are just asked not to, no biggy, no telling off, just a reminder of the particular rules of boards. All forums have their little nuances, anyone using them enough to know DD & DS will know that, I can't imagine anyone being overly upset at getting a heads up to the rules on a forum they are new to.

simu wrote: »

All sorts of acronyms are used frequently all over boards.ie - why pick on parenting acronyms because some users find them too cutsey for their taste?

I don't find them cutesy, I think they are quite handy actually but I don't think this is really about ease of typing, it's about making sure anyone can jump into the forum and know what is being said and contribute, no? I can't think of any other acronym commonly used on boards that you must have specialised knowledge from other sites to understand...

simu

Thaedydal wrote: »

I don't think they are an online standard at all and even if they seem to be I don't see that as a valid reason why they have to be a standard here.
I see it as a dumbing down this forum does not need and this place as a safe haven for those who can't stand them.

They're a widely-used convention rather than a standard. I'm not saying their usage should be obligatory but rather that some users will chose to use them - is that really so terrible?

I have seem some awful bullying on 3 sites which use them and for me the use of them reflects the tone of the site and the attitude of those using them and this forum is not the same as those stand alone parenting sites.

They're not just used on those sites - I've seen them on UK and US sites too, for example. Bullying is commonplace on the internet and there's plenty of it on boards too. I think you're being a bit harsh on those other forums but whatevs - subjective opinions and all that.

I think that is unfair, the majority of posters will always try and be helpful and friendly and I have never seen any poster round on anyone for using those codes.

Well, presumably, they would be rounded on in some manner if the usage of the acronyms in question is banned.

This forum is not like those other sites, if you wish to use those others sites fine, knock yourself out, but here is not there and it has never been and I don't think it's fair to demand that this forum conform to what is the standard elsewhere esp when it will alienate posters and members of the community here.

And it's fair to force users of boards to conform to your idea of what sort of acronyms are ok to use on the parenting forum? You want to attract more traffic to these boards on the one hand but you want to control it and keep it in line with how you think it should be... tricky, to say the least.

If the over whelming majority of posters wanted those codes and if I was out voted by the rest of the mods of this forum then I would resgin and let people have the forum they want, but do we need a forum which is a clone of those other sites?

The odd "dd" or "ds" won't change the forum fundamentally but an outright ban would increase the work of the mods (you would have to rebuke offenders etc) and to little effect imo.

I asked for this forum to be set up as I could not bear the other online irish parenting sites. Mind you these days I find my personal questions and discussions are mostly on sites with pertain to parenting children on the autistic spectrum but I still try and be as active and helpful here as I can.

Ok, you started it and as one of the mods, you have a hand in guiding it but beware of overmodding!

simu

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who said anything about excessively rigid rules? When someone posts in text speak they are just asked not to, no biggy, no telling off, just a reminder of the particular rules of boards. All forums have their little nuances, anyone using them enough to know DD & DS will know that, I can't imagine anyone being overly upset at getting a heads up to the rules on a forum they are new to.


I don't find them cutesy, I think they are quite handy actually but I don't think this is really about ease of typing, it's about making sure anyone can jump into the forum and know what is being said and contribute, no?

So people won't be able to jump in because they will have to get used to the "little nuances" first. No one (trolls apart) likes to get bollocked for a first post.

I can't think of any other acronym commonly used on boards that you must have specialised knowledge from other sites to understand...

tbh

Nevyn

simu wrote: »

Well, presumably, they would be rounded on in some manner if the usage of the acronyms in question is banned.

The convention of using those codes has never been allowed on this forum,
that is the currently state of play, people have always been encouraged not to use them. To suggest that all of a sudden posters who use them will be subjected to punitive draconian measures is frankly laughable and disingenuous.

simu wrote: »

And it's fair to force users of boards to conform to your idea of what sort of acronyms are ok to use on the parenting forum? You want to attract more traffic to these boards on the one hand but you want to control it and keep it in line with how you think it should be... tricky, to say the least.

As you can see from posts in this thread I am not the only one who feels this way about those codes, The forum has been doing well all by it's self with out anyone needing to try an attract more traffic, if something will attract more traffic but impact on the currently community in a negative way then I would not be in favour of it.

simu wrote: »

The odd "dd" or "ds" won't change the forum fundamentally but an outright ban would increase the work of the mods (you would have to rebuke offenders etc) and to little effect imo.

There has always been a ban on this, this is nothing new.
It has never added any extra 'work' as far as I am concerned, it is very rarely I have to mention that the codes along with text speak are not permitted.
It's seemed to have worked fine until now.

simu wrote: »

Ok, you started it and as one of the mods, you have a hand in guiding it but beware of overmodding!

How is opening a thread for a discussion on this and saying if the community really wanted it I would not stand in the way over modding?

simu wrote: »

So people won't be able to jump in because they will have to get used to the "little nuances" first. No one (trolls apart) likes to get bollocked for a first post.

As far as I know no one has ever gotten a bollocking for a first post ever on this forum.
Oh and I am aware of discussions about this thread happening on two other sites and I can't bring myself to care
about what people post about me on other sites as they don't have the fortitude to address me with their issues.

simu

I still haven't been convinced of any good reason for the ban tbh. But I'm bowing out of this thread because I've wasted enough of my time on it.