What happens when people press hard to force a decision? A: You get one, and invariably it's not the answer you wanted to hear.

The consideration to abolish General has come up before.

You're being rude to Jeremy who I feel clearly did answer you. I get the impression that you rejected his answer. That's your right, but I still do not feel it may alter his answer.

1 members found this post helpful.

In the end, it's Jeremy's forum. We're just his guests and have to observe his house rules. I also feel that the thread as a whole was not unacceptable apart from that one dreadful post which I complained about, but the ultimate decision was not mine to make or Ondoho's either. Considering the amount of work that Jeremy does here, I don't think it's really on to keep complaining about his decisions.

1 members found this post helpful.

If it wasn't clear: I closed the thread, and it was nowhere near civilized when I closed it. In fact, multiple posts have been removed with resulting warnings. I've also posted about political topics being on the cusp of moratorium multiple times, most recently here. If the consensus based on this thread is that General is no feasible, we'll evaluate shutting it down completely or redefining the parameters for participation.

--jeremy

I'm not convinced of that consensus, given that several of the posters in this thread appear to have General on ignore, yet cannot resist giving their opinion. If seeking a consensus, a thread/poll within General would be a better way to focus on the input of those affected.

Though this does highlight that General does have to be explicitly ignored. LQ also has a Social Groups section, which is effectively opt-in. Perhaps disallowing political discussion in General could be combined with creating a social group for them - allowing those interested in constructive political discussions and differing perspectives to continue, whilst being in a less prominent location would reduce the unwanted attention?

1 members found this post helpful.

I'm not sure this would satisfy ondoho's issue. Presumably he would want to partake of that "new" arrangement and would continue to be unhappy at closing threads without full explanation.
Personally I don't care either way. If I lose interest in a thread I stop following so I didn't even see the alleged "evil" posts.

Sure, as long as participants there are held to the same standard of behavior as they are elsewhere on LQ.

Note that feature sees very little usage and may not make it to the next version of LQ. There has not been a single post in 2022.

--jeremy

There is nothing wrong with 'General', many, if not most posts in the forum often deal with technological developments outside the purview of linux or other operating systems and are enjoyable to read. I think there are plenty of 'tools' to regulate the experience up to and including ignoring posts and posters, threads or deflecting ad-hominem attacks with civil intellectual parries instead of whining about bruised sensibilities.
That said I agree with a participant in the now closed thread,

^ Actually no, but that's a different topic.

Thanks for clarifying.
And no, it wasn't clear until now. You might want to go back to your previous post - at no point does it clarify or even hint by who the thread was closed or what specifically warranted that.
And it still isn't clear to me which posts are over the edge and which aren't. Why have the option to talk politics only to then feel the constant insecurity that maybe I'm being too political or something...?
Can't we simply have the same rules for all threads - no flaming, no trolling, no swearing, no personal attacks etc.?
Again: I haven't seen this last troll's post, but the rest didn't seem so bad to me - more good than bad at any rate.

I stand by my statement: for me it makes more sense to ban politics completely instead of this constant wishy washy, and the implications of silently closing or deleting things.
I participate in other forums that have this rule. It can be refreshing.
Clarity.

BTW, I don't understand the negative connotations people have to bring to this thread. Discussing things is important. I'm not being negative.

And thanks to those who did contribute in a constructive way.

This looks like it could be a viable alternative. I have now created a politics group. Join!

Jeremy closes threads which he deems unsalvageable - if a thread doesn't reach that state it wont be closed, so there'd be no issue.

Moving the discussions out of the main forums would reduce their visibility, so those with no interest in being constructive are less likely to visit and derail discussions, and thus it reduces the chance of problems.


Yep, I hadn't expected otherwise. (Posts there have a report link which presumably works the same way as here.)


Oh well in that case we've got plenty of time before it disappears...

I think it's a shame that the social groups feature doesn't get more use; I've felt for a while that many long-running threads could work better as social groups, likewise for topical short-term high-but-narrow-interest things like sporting events that occasionally get threads.

Anyhow, hopefully this experiment will prove their usefulness, enough for the feature (or something similar) to make it to next version.

1 members found this post helpful.

Yes, and I will echo the opinion that "therefore, generally, I don't want such threads to crop up here." Excluding the legendary "mega-thread," which remains a self-policing polite conversation, I really don't want this forum's "General" thread to become ... well ... polluted.

If you want to express your opinion about these things, choose the proper place in which to do it. (And in fact I do express some opinions in some of those "other places." But I do not discuss those activities here.)

The site owners have established a policy on this matter that I personally agree with ... although I have not always agreed with all of the policies that they have set over these many years. (I lost the vote, and that was the end of it.) This while keeping this thread open to entertain open discussion of those policies, so long as the discussion remains civil.

Therefore, "LinuxQuestions" remains today as an artifact of something that has become pretty darned rare on the Internet these days: "a genuine forum that still serves its original chartered purpose." You can still come here, as "the first place that you decide to come to," for the purpose for which the site was founded. Namely: to very quickly get a technically-qualified answer to a "Linux question." And the reason for that continues to be: "the owners and the moderators."

(P.S.: I spend zero time these days in the "StackExchange™" so-called forums, because they are simply filled with "chatter." I know that my voice – and my question – will never be heard unless someone replies to me (literally) within ten minutes. Their service is therefore utterly useless.

Yeah ... "you have it real good at "LQ!" ("Why isn't there a 'heart' smiley?")

Look. I never opened the Ukraine thread, and I have a pretty good idea of who got it locked. May I suggest the following?

1. get rid of the individuals whose behaviours the moratoriums are addressing
2. get rid of the moratoriums

And more needlessly agressive behaviour in this thread.
Also you clearly didn't read all of it, probably got triggered right from the start.

To whom it may concern: the explanation came in post #18, which I then refered to in post #24.

Thank you for reading. I wouldn't say the (greater) issue is solved though.