<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[DaBears - Chicago Bears Message Board and Fan Blog Site - Site Rules, Announcements, and How-To's]]></title>
		<link>http://www.dabears.com/</link>
		<description>READ HERE FIRST!</description>
		<language>en</language>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 19:09:27 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>vBulletin</generator>
		<ttl>60</ttl>
		
		<item>
			<title>At least TRY...</title>
			<link>http://www.dabears.com/site_rules_announcements_how_tos/47543-least_try.html</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 06:22:57 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Please try, in the public forums*, to remain ON TOPIC as much as possible.  Some users enter/participate in threads based on the "title" and the...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>Please try, in the public forums*, to remain ON TOPIC as much as possible.  Some users enter/participate in threads based on the "title" and the supposed topic of discussion.<br />
<br />
We understand that any stated topic can slowly morph into an entirely different topic.  Sometimes things that are seemingly unrelated may actually have some relationship as the topic unfolds.  If I go into a thread and the topic is, generally speaking and ONLY as an example, grass vs. turf and the discussion morphs into a specific QB/WR/WR performance/statistics on those surfaces... that is fine.  It's relatable, understandable and contributes to the general idea of a grass vs. turf discussion.<br />
<br />
However, if the same thread ends up with an unrelated and unexplained picture of a donut (another example here...) it will either get the poster "ignored" by other users (it is a feature we have) or will kill the momentum of the thread.  All that does is frustrate the OP or other members.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying you can't.  I'm saying everyone should <u><b>TRY</b></u> not to veer the public threads off topic.  If there is absolutely something you MUST discuss, create another thread in the appropriate location.  I think the very easily proven fact that we have 100+ threads (it seems) about Cutler.... or BU... or Emery's draft... shows that we place absolutely no limits on creating like-related threads.  Some small difference may take the thread in a different direction than the others.  That is fine.  Knock your self out.   Eventually one of the admin's will get tired of it, if it gets out of hand, and merge the threads.  No biggie.  Have fun. But at least TRY and respect the OP's desired direction of discussion and remain on topic.<br />
<br />
*PUBLIC forums.  None of this applies to TBS, where we have turned off-topic discussions into a graded art form. Not only that, we probably COULD show how a donut IS on topic when discussing grass vs. turf.<br />
<br />
I guess what I'm saying is to be CONSIDERATE of your fellow fans while in the NFL/Bears/Sports, as well as any other public (non-TBS), forums.  Everybody wants to participate freely without any unnecessary "BS" and we should all be considerate, and adult, enough to allow that to happen.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.dabears.com/site_rules_announcements_how_tos/"><![CDATA[Site Rules, Announcements, and How-To's]]></category>
			<dc:creator>loki520</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dabears.com/site_rules_announcements_how_tos/47543-least_try.html</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
