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

Originally Posted by posixculprit Can't you subscribe to the forums you wish and then have LQ Spy display only posts from "subscribed threads"? No idea if it would work and too lazy to test it myself.

But then LQ spy won't tell you about new threads.

Originally Posted by MTK358 But then LQ spy won't tell you about new threads.

I think he means it would only show new threads/posts from the forums he subscribes to. Same as having checkboxes for which forums you want results from in LQ Spy.

Originally Posted by onebuck 'braindumps' as the above statement is where I agree. But the Rule(0) is not even adhered to by the mods. They just close it! Reasoning? Justification? Some on-going threads are just plain closed. Why? Post the reason mods!

At least in the threads I've seen the mods have been good about stating why Rule 0 was applied. And to be honest, those thread needed it.

Originally Posted by onebuck If the thread is a viable presentation of information and some errant member presents something that's adrift then spank that post not the whole thread. I don't care if it's aligned by my thoughts or not but if errant then correct that part not stop everything that's on-going.

Sometimes there is significant value in giving everyone a time-out to cool down. It is a rule I know I need to enforce on myself a bit more. And I'm sure that which has been locked can be unlocked if the mods so decide.


I'm all in favor of Rule 0, and given the past history of the current mod crew, I suspect that it will not be abused. LQ has the best mod team I've come across, and I don't think the Rule 0 option will go to their heads.

Originally Posted by Hangdog42 I'm all in favor of Rule 0, and given the past history of the current mod crew, I suspect that it will not be abused. LQ has the best mod team I've come across, and I don't think the Rule 0 option will go to their heads.

But according to the definition of Rule 0, it pretty much instructs moderators to abuse their powers.

Originally Posted by MTK358 But according to the definition of Rule 0, it pretty much instructs moderators to abuse their powers.

I think it allows mods to abuse their powers. Whether they do or not is a different question, and like I've said, I think this mod crew generally behaves itself quite well. From what I've seen here, moderators generally don't work in isolation when it comes to severe sanctions so I don't think this will be any different. And we've always had the avenue of appealing to Jeremy and I haven't seen Rule 0 modify that at all.

Whoa. What happened while I was gone? Rule #0? Cool. Hey is this because of my stupid polls?

Anyway I fully support rule #0. Fascism rules.

Random comments---I've been out of the loop for the last 36 hours due to a major review.

"Excluding General from LQSpy": Good move, Jeremy!!

"We need a "water cooler": I agree, but I think my workplace example is valid---we talk about all manner of things at the water cooler, but avoid the hot-button stuff.

"Rule #0 will lead to moderators abusing the members": Nonsense!! For the most part, the mods have regular discussion about what the appropriate actions are in various situation.

Also, General is where we send the Non-*nix questions. Remember this: http://windowsquestions.org

Originally Posted by onebuck My query to the mods and other members is 'How can a healthy, intelligent debate be allowed?'

That is a good question.

The first question then should be: what could be a basis for starting a constructive discussion? Let's take for example your OP here. (Please note I'm not going to discuss politics or opinions.) First of all most of it is not original content created by you (not your posting style) but a copy of what was posted by others to other sites. Since it was written by others (and for a particular purpose) the form it is written in invites posts by the like-minded. That purpose seems to be reinforced by you stating you "really don't care what (..) says nor what (..) says".

From what I know about it a discussion can only be fruitful, constructive if the parties involved have a genuine interest in learning (from) the other parties. Meaning: having an opinion that can be changed and be willing to see it changed. If people respond only for defending their own entrenched positions what you get seems like interaction but in essence never exceeds its net value as a collection of monologues. (For those interested I recommend reading "Conversation" by Theodore Zeldin.) In short I'm simply talking about open-mindedness.


As for having problems with closure it is true that a valid reason should be given. However IMO it would be best to tackle it on a per-thread basis when it occurs because allowing you to keep using the "heavy handed mods" argument here without specifics is not going to help here and now. I invite you to report posts or shoot /General moderators an email.

* BTW, in aforementioned thread you say

Originally Posted by onebuck I say shoot them then deport.

You must not express yourself that way.
Please do not do that again.

Hi,

Originally Posted by unSpawn * BTW, in aforementioned thread you say You must not express yourself that way. Please do not do that again.

I agree and my apologies if it offended anyone for my flippant statement.

Hi,

Originally Posted by unSpawn That is a good question. The first question then should be: what could be a basis for starting a constructive discussion? Let's take for example your OP here. (Please note I'm not going to discuss politics or opinions.) First of all most of it is not original content created by you (not your posting style) but a copy of what was posted by others to other sites. Since it was written by others (and for a particular purpose) the form it is written in invites posts by the like-minded. That purpose seems to be reinforced by you stating you "really don't care what (..) says nor what (..) says". From what I know about it a discussion can only be fruitful, constructive if the parties involved have a genuine interest in learning (from) the other parties. Meaning: having an opinion that can be changed and be willing to see it changed. If people respond only for defending their own entrenched positions what you get seems like interaction but in essence never exceeds its net value as a collection of monologues. (For those interested I recommend reading "Conversation" by Theodore Zeldin.) In short I'm simply talking about open-mindedness. As for having problems with closure it is true that a valid reason should be given. However IMO it would be best to tackle it on a per-thread basis when it occurs because allowing you to keep using the "heavy handed mods" argument here without specifics is not going to help here and now. I invite you to report posts or shoot /General moderators an email.

You can point to any style that may not agree with others for creating or how one delves into the world of LQ.

I posted the OP with the intent of comparative actions by select countries. I never claimed original content for the opening and did not indicate as such. No plagiarism! I should have tagged the content but that is moot. Oversight.

As my: 'don't care' it stands. I did not care nor care what the Mexican Government (MG) or Attorney General (AG) have to say about the situation. How's that a problem to form one's stance?

As for 'Open Mindedness': each to their own position as to whether to be open to others opinion or not. It should not be a mandated position nor should someone place a wall to defend oneself but hopefully to have the conversation via face to face or textual. We should all have the means to form good exchanges and then one can either change the conversation or not. If we have to predicate then that itself is restrictive thus not allowing fruitful exchange of information.

Originally Posted by unSpawn As for having problems with closure it is true that a valid reason should be given. However IMO it would be best to tackle it on a per-thread basis when it occurs because allowing you to keep using the "heavy handed mods" argument here without specifics is not going to help here and now. I invite you to report posts or shoot /General moderators an email.

I cannot fully comment on the above right now. But I will say that in the future that a statement will be formed at the time of occurrence. I agree that is unfair on my part for not being specific at this time but in the future it won't be as such.

I will take the advice constructively and will voice via email in the future. But I will voice on the forum as I feel everything should be revealed not just hidden via email or PM.

Originally Posted by onebuck As for 'Open Mindedness': each to their own position as to whether to be open to others opinion or not. It should not be a mandated position nor should someone place a wall to defend oneself but hopefully to have the conversation via face to face or textual. We should all have the means to form good exchanges and then one can either change the conversation or not. If we have to predicate then that itself is restrictive thus not allowing fruitful exchange of information.

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.

Perhaps, rule #0 is just a way of trying to rebalance the usage of the forum. I'm sure there are many members (including myself) who spend much (too much?) of their LQ time in General. Obviously, this is not a crime, but LQ is a technical forum, and the general section is supposed to be just a small addition to it and recently, as someone pointed out, there have been a lot of rubbish threads there about nothing (I admit I actively participate(d) in such threads).

If I had a technical forum, I'd provide the users with an off-topic section (General), but I'd try to encourage the members to focus on technical stuff instead of spending most of the time creating little silly threads in General.

As I said, in that respect I'm just as guilty as anyone.

One of the mods also mentioned that there were some talks about completely disallowing certain topics in General.
This I would NOT support.

Originally Posted by sycamorex I'd try to encourage the members to focus on technical stuff instead of spending most of the time creating little silly threads in General.

Interesting. If you mean giving encouragement the positive way then how would you do that, practically speaking?

Originally Posted by unSpawn Interesting. If you mean giving encouragement the positive way then how would you do that, practically speaking?

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.

The following ideas are really bad, undemocratic, unfair and over-complicated in many respects but perhaps someone could modify them to make them more democratic or fair:

1. For every 25 posts in General one post will be subtracted from a user's post count. [This is not really fair, besides, it's not all about post counts]

1a. Introduce some sort of post evaluation mechanism button in general. Something like 'A user found / didn't find this post useful'. If a user gets a negative feedback 10 times, one post will be subtracted from their post count or a person will automatically be banned for 24hours. [Again, this is crap. I think there already was a discussion here about giving negative feedback.]

2. Each thread in General will be first evaluated by the mods before it appears in General. If the post meets the criteria of being either informative, useful or funny, it'll make it to the general section. [again, who's to decide what is funny/useful?! It's a matter of personal preferences. Besides, it'll be time-consuming for the mods]

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]

As I said, the above examples are mostly crap and we shouldn't have any rules like that in the first place. Ideally, members themselves should be their own mods/judges and think twice before posting anything.

edit: btw, looking at the above rules, at the moment I wouldn't probably be allowed to post in General at all, LOL