[FFML] A thought on the future of the FFML

[The Wanderer]

On 06/26/2013 12:19 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM, The Wanderer <wanderer at fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> 
>> For example, when the post you're replying to is the one
>> immediately preceding yours, and consists of e.g. only one
>> paragraph (as many posts in many Web forums do), and will still be
>> visible on the same page as your post when your post is added, the
>> original text will be immediately visible for context even if you
>> don't quote; quoting it would be unnecessary duplication and
>> clutter.
>> 
>> In more complex scenarios, the question becomes a bit murkier, but
>> it's still far from clear that quoting is the correct thing to do
>> in all cases when the original post will still be visible.
> 
> Ah, but:
> 
> * In an email thread, the earlier message is visible - on another
> page/view, if necessary, but it's still visible.

But it's not visible *at the same moment* when you're reading the new
message, which is when the context is necessary.

> * In the specific case of the FFML, it would seem that most posts
> will not be single-paragraph.  While those do exist, the point of the
> FFML is long posts - either fics, or extensive C&C on said fics.

Agreed. This is also why we probably tilt more towards interleaved
quoting than most places nowadays will.

>> This is complicated further by the fact that different people have
>> different ideas of what's correct when it comes to quoting when
>> replying; the difference between top-posting and interleaved
>> replying is one major one, and I suspect that the mindset which
>> leads you to use interleaved replies also contributes to your
>> opinion that quoting is always the correct thing to do.
> 
> This can also be adjusted, somewhat, by the default behavior of the
> quoting tool.  If, by default, it deposits the user's cursor above,
> then the user will top-post by default.  OTOH, if it moves to the
> bottom by default, bottom-posting becomes the default.  And if it
> tries to detect the end of the first paragraph and defaults to
> putting the cursor there...

That's more complicated, but if it can be properly implemented, would be
a very nice idea.

>> I've seen newsgroups that impose a maximum-quoted-lines-percentage
>> requirement (news.admin.net-abuse.policy being the one that springs
>> to mind), and while it does help in some ways, it also makes
>> contributing to discussions more difficult.
> 
> Could you elaborate on how exactly it helps and makes contributing
> more difficult, for those of us who haven't been to Usenet recently?

Mainly, it means that if you have a brief comment to add, you have to
either snip extensively (possibly too much for proper context) or add
additional lines of text just to make it in past the posting filter.

> Also, would a minimum-quoted-lines percentage requirement help?

I'm honestly not sure, and I'm about to be running late for work, so I
don't have time to think about it right now. Let me get back to you
later.

-- 
    The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
   - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger