Forum Rules 11 (19 Feb 2022)

I'm wondering about a future 'Version 12' update to the Forum Rules. When the time comes, should a rule should added under General Conduct about extending the courtesy of puctuation and corrected spelling to members' posts?

A recent case in point:
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-is-the-ideal-mbt.42368/page-2#post-659417

I get the flippant humour ... after receiving requests for interpunction and care with spelling, reply without punction while including an obvious spelling error. Whether that response meets "ALWAYS be polite and civil in forum posts and private messages" is open to debate.

Anyway, my added rule notion is just a thought. I have no dog in this fight. I'm a lousy speller myself but try to check before posting. And, doubtless, typing with thumbs is more challenging that I imagine. Still, in such cases, might it be worth making an appeal to following the forum rules before seeking out the bliss of the 'ignore' button?
 
I'd like to suggest that users attempt to spell and use punctuation as a courtesy to others as a rule.

My wife is totally dyslexic, but she uses a spellchecker and mostly makes well-spelled posts with the occasional amusing completely wrong word choice.

Our many non-native speakers seem able to do it.

Some users, typically young and American, just don't seem to subscribe to the notion that they should bother trying to spell correctly at all.
 
There is a habit of some posters recently to simply post a twitter post or YouTube video, with no actual comment or input from the member.
This is leading to certain members, who are obviously trying to get a message across, simply putting post after post consisting of nothing more than random tweets that further their specific agenda or "message" they are driving home.
It's a form of influencing, or even perhaps spam.
This is particularly prevalent to this Ukraine issue.

It's leading to me wonder at times if I'm on Twitter or Secretprojects.
I don't belong to Twitter precisely because it's so agenda driven or propagandised across a range of issues.

I don't know...

Would it perhaps make sense that if someone does link like this, that they need to at least provide a minimum accompanying effort input of their own, which might stall easy efforts somewhat at spamming their particular 'message" agenda?

It can't only be me who has noticed this?
 
Last edited:
The forum acts as a collaborative library were members add, ask and comment about their personal interest and research. Anyone benefit for the collective compilation activity which is often way more effective than individual effort.

To me, I think it's a matter of stay on topic and avoid the forum departing from that original foundational purposes.

To readdress the situation, creating the "bar" and "alternative/speculative" sections seems to work for us and most fora. Probably a compromise solution, but at least allows to keep the forum's precious core free from clutter.

I confess I'm not a fan of that sections but, visiting it for moderation purposes, I must admit that sometimes I've found interesting posts. So, probably, the forum enjoys a reasonable good health.

About posting links from "X", I'm not an "X" member and I find useful to find links here with projects contents.

War in Ukraine started as totally off-topic to the forum, and to me we have too many off-topic posts from it. However, since the Ukrainian battlefields are being used for military tech testing and development, that specific information is relevant here.
 
I would say it is fair to have a rule that link posts must include a comment about the contents of the link, so users can judge whether they want to visit the site in question. Not everyone can see the site preview especially if they block scripts.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I would say it is fair to have a rule that link posts must include a comment about the contents of the link, so users can judge whether they want to visit the site in question. Not everyone can see the site preview especially if they block scripts.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, even more so that, as a rule, I do not click on a link or a video unless I know what I'm going to find on the other end. It's not just for safety, it's a way of avoiding a waste of precious time. Links to videos, in particular, should include a brief description and an indication of their length. One should also be warned if the page contains advertising or if the article is only partial (pay-per-view).
 
Plus a lot of these Youtube videos are soon removed/blocked or unavailable in some countries so become pointless posts anyway.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom