GCA Discussion Group Etiquette Questions - Not What You Might Think

[Carl Johnson]

I'm not talking about profanity, calling names and other such stuff, but this.

(1) If someone starts a discussion, should that person be expected to monitor and from time to time summarize and at the end, which often comes quickly, provide a final summary?

(2) If A makes a comment, and that leads B to ask A a question related to the comment, and A answers, an answer which may or may not pose a further question to or ask for a clarification from B, should B be expected to come back to A?

I see many, many posts for a discussion, but which soon die unresolved (to my mind).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

Good points, but I think it's difficult to dictate the terms of participation on a site where participation and responses are voluntary.

[Garland Bayley]

For a while, I would summarize what had been said in a thread I started by continually updating the first post in the thread. Threads died quickly that way. But, then again, threads I start usually die quickly unless I write something very controversial. But, then again, me writing something controversial has become so old hat that they still get ignored.

All I know is that most threads started by Patrick are truly boring. That's right Mucci, I'm talking about you.

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,

Good points, but I think it's difficult to dictate the terms of participation on a site where participation and responses are voluntary.

Pat, my intent is not to "dictate the terms of participation," but rather to ask whether, and by implication suggest, such practices should looked upon favorably as good ettiquete, or maybe as "best practices."  (By the way, I hate the term "best practice," but off the top of my head that's what I come up with.)

[Jason Thurman]

Carl, I think the answer to both is no.

For question 1, I think a lot of threads work best when the original poster gets out of the way and lets the discussion form without too much of his help. Good topics don't need to be carried along by the person who started them. But I agree with Garland on this and in most cases, if the original poster has to comment regularly in his own thread, he's either started a boring topic or he's risking killing an interesting one.

The answer to question 2 is obviously no. B can respond if he'd like, of course. But if he's obligated to respond then somehow that would mean we're supposed to consider B the jackass if A turns out to be a badgering no-life who likes to ask ridiculous questions of others for no apparent purpose other than passing the time when the weather sucks. Not that such a scenario ever happens here, of course.  

[Carl Johnson]

Carl, I think the answer to both is no.
. . .
The answer to question 2 is obviously no. B can respond if he'd like, of course. But if he's obligated to respond then somehow that would mean we're supposed to consider B the jackass if A turns out to be a badgering no-life who likes to ask ridiculous questions of others for no apparent purpose other than passing the time when the weather sucks. Not that such a scenario ever happens here, of course.  

So, let's say A comes back with an obviously ridiculous question or comment – obvious to just about everyone except A (at the time A made the post).  Then, I, as B, would simply ignore it.  I think that would be the best practice.  On the other hand, say I, as B, have asked a question involving golf course architecture, and A comes back with some useful information, and also asks for clarification on one point so he can give an even more complete response.   It seems to me that I, as B, should then feel obligated to respond to A to carry on the discussion I started.

[Jason Thurman]

I'd do the same thing Carl. But it's not a question of etiquette for me. It's just the simple fact that A has information of interest to me and needs a little help from me to know what to share. I'd want to help him help me.

I don't think it's poor etiquette if B doesn't respond though. He might just be busy, or even have forgotten the name of the thread he was conversing with A in. Etiquette is tougher in a transient conversation like the ones we have on this site.

[Carl Johnson]

Ten Four.  Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For a while, I would summarize what had been said in a thread I started by continually updating the first post in the thread. Threads died quickly that way. But, then again, threads I start usually die quickly unless I write something very controversial. But, then again, me writing something controversial has become so old hat that they still get ignored.

All I know is that most threads started by Patrick are truly boring. That's right Mucci, I'm talking about you.

Then why do you participate in so many of them ?

You must be a moron !

No, you must be a "supreme" moron