A couple of ground rules to consider for the blog. I am curious what the other contributors think, as well as any of our readers (though in truth, we probably don't care what you say, and will decide the rules no matter what you think, and we might even make our decision based in part on the opposite of your opinion).The issue:
Cockblogging.
The description: This is Open Bar's term, and while to me it sounds like an online diary focusing on one's penis, it has come to mean posting to the blog immediately or shortly after another contributor has posted, thus demoting (in terms of position and thus prominence on the site) the earlier-in-time post.
My opinion: I am torn on this one. Part of me thinks it is silly to prevent the other contributors from posting whatever and whenever they want, but I too know the pain of putting up an absolutely spectacular post, only to have it demoted within hours, if not minutes, by some nonsense about how "fucking awesome" America is. Should we consider a six-hour rule? A twelve-hour rule? If so, what about the fact that everything Open Bar posts hits the site between 2:00 and 5:00 a.m.? Does that change the analysis. I think I am leaning towards no rule on this. As long as you put something substantive/funny/engaging/interesting on the site, and you are not posting merely to bury another post (which I don't believe anyone has ever done), we should all be encouraged to post without any time restrictions.
The issue:
Commenting on PostsThe description: It has been suggested (perhaps "implied" is a better word) that one should not post -- particularly if such post is "cockblogging" another's post (see above) -- without first commenting on the earlier-in-time post.
My opinion: I will readily admit that I really like it when people comment on my posts, particularly when it is one of my co-contributors and they approve of a piece that I spent a lot of time preparing. That said, I cannot see how we can make it a prerequisite to posting that you comment on earlier posts. Sometimes no comment is necessary, sometimes if you can't say anything nice, etc., and sometimes you just don't feel like it. Anyone disagree?
The issue:
LabelsThe description: Labels are the funny/informative tags applied at the end of the post. I probably should have just called them "tags," and then you would have known what I meant without the need for this description. When you post to the blog, there is a separate field for adding tags, and if you begin to type one that has already been used, Blogger fills it in for you (which is nice).
My opinion: We have enough. In fact, we have 381 of them, compared with 364 posts (including this one). Yes, I counted. There is nothing you can add to this blog that cannot be covered by one of the existing tags. I think we should only use pre-existing labels from now on. Which is to say you can only use labels that Blogger auto-fills for you as you type them in. Sometimes it's a bit of a stretch, but it generally works, and that makes it funnier/more interesting anyway. I am not sure how often we will use tags like "Yorvit is a stupid name," and "poster-board is the new construction paper," but more standard ones like "Mets," "Barack-ing My World," and "Dogs raping children--funny?" will be used all the time. I guess the only problem is that we would have to police ourselves pretty carefully, and it might be a rule that no one wants to/is willing to enforce.
Wheeeeeeeeere's Luke officially enters its "terrible twos" today. 
