I don't think any opinion on this subject is inappropriate. I doubt, at least I really hope not, that narrators will take anything here as an insult, or a demand for conformity. Each narrator has their own style, but the question is strictly asking about Steve's style, so I hope nobody takes anything as a personal slight _nor_ gives up their style.
I do hope, however, that future story readers use this poll as a gage about how much "fun" or "playfulness" they can put into their reading of the non-story ("meta-") stuff; not necessarily just to ape Steve, but more like, use this as a license/excuse for their own creativity. Maybe I should have phrased my poll more broadly, but for now I'm sticking to the narrow question.
Maybe in the comments people can post how receptive they are when the host "hams it up" on the meta- portions of their reading. To take another example, in Podcastle, their legalese boilerplate is always a canned recording by Rachael Swirsky; but on the other hand, Dave Thompson often spends time riffing on the story itself, and sometimes his word games extend into the totally non-story announcements. The alternative is to leave the non-story portion dignified, but stodgy. Where is the line between dignity and humor? How much humor can bleed into the credits, the intro, or the outro of the episode -- or even the ads, like the Audible ads?
