</me puts on wording-police cap>
1. If LQ is an English-only forum, then the proposed rule must not use the word "should" in the first sentence. The word "should" (to me) means "a strong preference for," but does not mean "required." Perhaps a two-sentence approach:
2. There's an unnecessary "fudge" word.
I would suggest removing "attempt to" entirely.

3. Split that long sentence into two, and phrase it such that the result is a carrot--not a stick.
So, all together...
And I'm spent...
</me takes cap off>

I'm not trying to "get" anybody Though, in the interest of developing both sides, SMS/l33t-speak could affect searching. For instance, a poster uses a distinctive, peculiar phrase. You may remember the distinctive phrase and search for that. In such a situation the abbreviations might cause problems. Though, my guess is LQ's search is not used for that kind of search very often.

It would depend on what Jeremy considers "constructive." A narrow definition (i.e. meaning only helpful information to the question(s) posed) or a broad definition more in-line with what you're thinking of. For the record, the kind of post you suggest is helpful in my opinion so long as it includes both parts. Without the "drive people away" explanation, the message becomes a reprimand and likely to put the poster on the defensive.

Side note: No, I'm not asking Jeremy to define what "constructive" means.

I admit that I wasn't thinking of the answer containing the SMS/l33t-speak. My experience is that most of the people providing answers aren't "big time" offenders. But that's just speculation on my part. At the same time, jlinkels's response would seem to indicate that's his impression as well. Not trying to put you on the spot jlinkels... just trying to extrapolate

EDIT:
I didn't steal my "attempt" business from jefro (or Yoda), I swear!

I have to demur from this with a mild quibble.

One person's idea of correct English may differ from another person's idea correct English, but I do think that saying that one person's correct English may be another person's gutter talk is a bit on the side of hyperbole.

I suspect that, if I launched into what most Americans consider gutter talk, most other persons from English-speaking countries and even speakers of English as a second language would agree with me that my tirade was completely out of line in a public place, even though there might be differences over this or that individual word; there would be agreement on the general gutterliness of the guttering.

Just my two cents.

Aside:

Really, this proposal was about putting in the guidelines a baseline expectation. I see nothing wrong with that.

Back in the olden days, when I was a young 'un, a new visitor to a newsgroup (forums did not exist in those days of men of iron and computers of wood) was expected to lurk about for a while to learn the ways of a group and then to conform to the minimum standards. Not doing so was grounds for flamage of a delicious and brutal kind not generally seen here.

This discussion is about whether minimum standards should be expressed explicitly or learned along the way.

Either way, text speak, l33t speak, and other such speak are not consistent with LQ's norms and will accordingly be called out by regular members.

Why not just let new persons know up front? The issue is not diagramming sentences, as much as some would make it so; the issue is creating informed members who can participate fully in the forum with as few missteps as possible.

And at this point, I declare in newsgroup speak AFAIC, EOT.

I think your wording is right on the money Jeremy.

Frank, I'm coming from an education stance here. Americanisms are severely frowned upon in educational circles in my state but not in others. If a student handed in an assessment with color instead of colour or jail instead of gaol they would be penalised. I myself see no sense in that but it is what happens. In my state we don't have trash cans we have rubbish bins so I am pointing out that in some places certain ways of using English are "gutter talk" while in others they are the norm. I hope that is a reply that helps with your "quibble".

Subject to final comments, it's likely the rule will read:

--jeremy

I appreciate your explanation.

Perhaps there is a cultural barrier here, also, for when I hear "gutter talk," I think of profanity, swearing, obscene rudeness, and possibly illiterate constructions, not of grammatical incorrectness nor cultural differences of usage.

Then again there is the old saying by GBS that

Seems more better this way but either is OK.

We recommend that you use proper wording the technical areas. Avoiding sms/l33t speak will improve question clarity and ...

I agree Frank it is probably a cultural barrier but one that nonetheless exists. I think it is a pity that in this day and age we can't have patience with people who may not be as educated as others or use a different variety of English.

If LQ is an English-only forum, we should use the english plural 'forums' not latin plural 'fora'.

Abbreviations for technical terms arent a problem IMO. I'm sure not going to use 'Peripheral Component Interconnect Express' instead of PCIe, etc..

One of the reason why IMO SMSese is bad on international forums is because 'pls, I need ur hlp' will not translate properly. 'My PCIe vid card doesnt work' will thorw up untranslatable terms ('vid', 'PCIe') but anyone with a basic knowledge of computer terms will understand.

2 members found this post helpful.

The rules have been updated.

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.