General [This forum is for non-technical general discussion]

Personally I think if it has to be regulated, then rule #0 is the best way to do it, although I think perhaps the wording of rule #0 is a bit ugly and it seems that it's enforcement has been a little over zealous. But then again I personally like the general forum and find that it's fast pace encourages me to stay logged into LQ and monitor for posts I might be able to help with, whatever that's worth.

Originally Posted by damgar Personally I think if it has to be regulated, then rule #0 is the best way to do it, although I think perhaps the wording of rule #0 is a bit ugly and it seems that it's enforcement has been a little over zealous. But then again I personally like the general forum and find that it's fast pace encourages me to stay logged into LQ and monitor for posts I might be able to help with, whatever that's worth.

Now that I understand Rule 0 I am not really against it.

It should be said in the sticky that it *allows* moderators to abuse their powers, and that it's not intended to *encourage* them to abuse their powers.

When I wrote the Rule#0 post, I did so with my tongue firmly in my cheek. What I find interesting is that there is much discussion about how heavy handed the mods have been in applying the rule and yet I am only aware of 2 or 3 threads max that have been closed. One person got a time out for hate speech, which is pretty reasonable IMO and no one has had their posting curtailed. There are still terrible threads in General and they have not been smashed.

As MTK358 says "it *allows* moderators to abuse their powers, and that it's not intended to *encourage* them to abuse their powers." and that is meat of it - none of us have gone mad with power (to quote another thread) and the fascists haven't stamped all over General with their jackboots (to paraphrase another).

If you fear that you are at risk of being found guilty under the rule it would be a really good idea to think "why would I fall foul of the rule" and then make the necessary adjustment in your posting habits. The rule exists because there is a need for it, not because we have nothing better to do. Thankfully, most of the posters here understand that.

Hi,

Originally Posted by unSpawn Proving exactly my point: if you remain adamant that you should not have to (basically speaking) care for others then your OP will not register as an attempt at constructive dialogue with most but (generally speaking as) ranting about. All I'm saying is don't reject the concept without trying. If you find it incomprehensible, restrictive or otherwise limiting ways of expressing yourself (you are allowed under the LQ Rules and basic netiquette) then I suggest using your personal web log. It really is much better suited for making the type of political post in the way you (and others) do and have done.

I personally don't believe my statement was argumentative nor a rant. My viewpoint and how is that speaking for others? May have used a tense that seems as such but still my way of voicing. I think that everyone has different views and the [General] forum is one way of openly presenting information and views that others either align with or not. Hopefully an honest thoughtful exchange of views with useful information are within the content.

I don't reject things overall but I do believe that someone should not place a falsehood nor be two faced about things but be upfront.

Really, I thought the [General] forum is to be going through a clean up. If this is it then the 'and others' should be addressed in this same manner.

As for my 'don't care' statement, I'll rephrase that to 'The Mexican Government and the U.S. Attorney General have views & opinions that don't align with mine therefore I dismiss their opinion. Which if the dictionary/Answers.com is correct for 'dismiss';

excerpt from 'dismiss'; 1. To stop considering; rid one's mind of; dispel: dismissed all thoughts of running for office. 2. To refuse to accept or recognize; reject: dismissed the claim as highly improbable. Thesaurus: dismiss; verb; 5 To rid one's mind of: banish, cast out, dispel, shut out. See keep/release. 6 To be unwilling to accept, consider, or receive: decline, refuse, reject, spurn, turn down. Slang nix. Idioms: turn thumbs down on. See accept/reject.

So if my choice of phrase was offensive then the above should reflect my position in a clarified manner that should hopefully not be viewed as such. I'm not being argumentative nor defensive here but trying to convey my position in a clear manner.

Originally Posted by sycamorex It was rather an euphemism for saying that I'd try to discourage them from overusing the general section (note: from OVERusing, not using). I know it's easier said than done. I can't actually think of any democratic and fair way of accomplishing it.

Then you begin to get an idea of what it takes to moderate forums...

Originally Posted by sycamorex 3. Each member will have a limited number of posts 'to spend' in General based on the posts in technical sections: a) To be able to post in General at all you need to post at least 50 times in technical sections b) Then, 5 posts in technical sections will give you one post to spend in General. c) Each time you are thanked, you'll get 20 more posts to spend in General [This is again not very democratic, but people would think twice before posting in General]

While it's too easy to abuse 3a and 3b and ppl do not get thanked enough (or at all) to make 3c work but overall I think it's a nice starting point for thinking about rules because it has a positive basis.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Ideally, members themselves should be their own mods/judges and think twice before posting anything

Ideally, yes.

Originally Posted by onebuck I think that everyone has different views and the [General] forum is one way of openly presenting information and views that others either align with or not. Hopefully an honest thoughtful exchange of views with useful information are within the content.

- Nobody can contest that presenting information in the /General forum is somehow limited (except for what is prohibited by the LQ Rules).
- It is not prohibited to present ones opinion even if it or collides with other members.
- It is not prohibited but frowned upon to express oneself in a way that prevents constructive dialogue.
I think that is all that can be said about it without repetition.

Originally Posted by onebuck if my choice of phrase was offensive then the above should reflect my position in a clarified manner that should hopefully not be viewed as such. I'm not being argumentative nor defensive here but trying to convey my position in a clear manner.

I appreciate you clarifying things, you're not coming across as argumentative to me. We will all need to work together continuously to keep LQ /General a fun place to be for everybody. Rest assured that issues that need addressing will be addressed.