Look, I like Rusty and all, and I like the site too, but isn't he just the editor?
Depends on who you ask. Some people claim (wrongly) that I'm the Owner and God of the site and therefore My Word Goes. (Do please note all the sarcasm caps in the previous sentence ;-). I think of myself as basically tech support. I help people who have problems with stuff, and I write a lot of the code. Content-wise, I'm just one more vote. I do try to kinda set the general tone of the place, sometimes with stories, more so with comments and stuff like the FAQ.
when does an editor say to the readers "look, your letters to the editor aren't angry enough: I want to be
called a complete shitface at least once!"
Since this is a community-written site, every post is basically a letter to the editor
I don't see the logic here. Every story is just that-- a story. In fact, lately things have proceeded as though they were letters to the editor, but I think that's just because people haven't quite gotten used to the way it works yet.
Every story submitted is, and should be, addressed first to the readers of K5, and second to the world at large (which is another way of saying "the readers of K5", since to see the story, they'd have to become such, even if only for a minute). Anyway, they are not, and should never be, directed at me. I am just another reader, when it comes to selecting stories. I do proof and edit for grammar when necessary and possible, but usually I'm struggling to keep up-- stories do not have to get through me to go up on the site. So, no, they aren't letters to the editor.
if rusty doesn't like a rant,
he should post that in the comments while it is being voted on,
I often do.
and not marr the front page with some "oh,
please, let's be more abusive" crap.
First, I'd much rather have seen this go to section only. It's only really relevant to the Rants section. Dammit, people, that's what sections are for! Use them! :-)
Second, I definitely didn't say we should be more abusive. Read again. I said that ranting is an art form -- maybe I should have been more specific. Ranting is a comedic art form. A good rant will make you laugh, in spite of yourself. A good rant will make you laugh, even if you are the target of the ranter's ire. The point is that we can't all be nice all the time, and I don't think we should be. Sometimes you just need to unload, and if you do it in a good rant, it's usually pretty funny, and you feel better, and no one feels hurt because you were only joking (ha-ha-only-serious). Everybody wins.
Have you ever seen a Friar's club roast? Ranting is pretty much the internet equivalent of that. Good rants are never engendered by sincere hatred and loathing of the rantee. Usually (as in the case of the X-Windows diaster refered to below) they are the result of very close contact with and intimate knowlege of the rantee.
And perhaps most importantly, ranting != flaming. This is important. A flame implies a discussion, a rant is a standalone entity. There is no need to defend a rant, because it ought to say all that can be said by the ranter on the matter. It's a soliloquy, basically. A flame only exists as part of a flame war, and so is a more Socratic mode of argument.
Point taken, rusty, good rants are hard to find - but if you need to find good rants that badly, I feel sorry for
Not so much that I *need* good rants (but I don't think that's a bad thing -- good rants are hilarious). I just didn't want to see the rants section littered with lame half-ass rants. If you're gonna rant, well shit, get your rant on boy! :-)
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]