Thursday, February 5, 2009

Slashdot Rules

In preparation for a hypothetical future Slashdot effect, I'm preparing this post as a landing place for the hypothetical Slashdot readers who might come here in response to a story I'm contemplating writing and submitting to the Firehose.

The first instruction is that, for once, there's no need to RTFA. This site has some background information which might be of interest, but really the story says it all.

The second instruction is, "the discussion belongs on Slashdot". Feel free to read the articles and comments here (it's not necessary, but it does provide some background) but please don't post anything here unless you have a reason to prefer this venue to Slashdot. I'll be following the discussion there, and feel that the Slashdot moderation system is better-equipped to handle the volume.

The third instruction (assuming the first instruction didn't send you away) is RTFR. I would like to preserve a high standard of conduct here, and the flaming, baiting, and so forth that commonplace on Slashdot is not welcome here.

The fourth instruction is "make sure you have something to add". Take the time to read the previous comments, and only add yours if you feel your comment will advance the discussion. This could be as little as a better explanation of something someone else has said or corroborating evidence -- but it should advance the discussion in some way.

I still haven't decided whether or not to go ahead with the Slashdot post idea. Comments about the advisability of such a post or the suitability of this note as a landing point are welcome. My basic plan is to hold off on the idea, and if I go ahead with it to edit this article first in response to such comments or afterthoughts of my own.


  1. I'd like to mention a trick I have to make Slashdot tolerable (I find its home page too annoying and intrusive to use at present). I put their RSS feed in an my Firefox bookmark bar, and by so doing don't get any ads unless I want to read the article.

  2. My current thinking that such a post would be better off without a link to an article. The really curious would be able to do a Google search on my name and find the discussion that way, but I think that's OK -- the flamers and baiters don't tend to be willing to go to that much trouble.

    The rules post doesn't seem like it would work -- the guys most in need of the rules are precisely the ones most likely to click right through them and flame on regardless, and this forum is definitely not ready for a giant rowdy crowd.