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.