Draft community rules

[HFWR]

Well, I am courteous and ethical...

[cute fuzzy bunny]

.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny .

Eh, you just jacked up your post count by .00000060746%...

[Coach]

There are a couple of items in here that trouble me:

"Signatures must be setup in your profile rather than manually added to your messages."

Why? I just sign my message and skip the profile signature.

"Complaints about moderator decisions may not be made in posts; instead send a private message to a moderator."

This seems reasonable when it refers to a mod's decision regarding a post. I would hope it would not extend to, for example, moderator group decisions regarding the length of the edit window or the length of a signature.

The whole paragraph headed 'About the First Amendment, censorship and your "right to free speech"' seems a little heavy-handed to me. That the board is not a democracy and that the decisions of the admins and mods are absolute is made abundantly clear elsewhere.

I'm a little troubled by the signature standard "Signature may not include email addresses, links to competing websites, prompts to contact or a sales pitch", specifically the reference to links to competing websites. Perhaps you meant commercial rather than competing?

I like most of the rest of the document.

Coach

[Janet H]

Thanks for all your input and suggestions. The new community guidelines have been posted at the bottom of each page on the lower nav bar. Your input and suggestions were helpful (those of you who messaged mods about grandmothers, butter or with offers of graft were ignored).

Some highlights include a 6 line signature, no commercial spam and some language about being nice (even to new members).

Stuff we left out:
Strict rules about wandering off topic; we opted for fuzzier ones.
A section for commercial vendors.
References to grandma.

[bssc]

Thanks Janet for working on this. Sorry about the Grandma reference though.

[twaddle]

Well done. I especially liked "Many of them are brilliant. Some are doofi." Is it possible for me to get an official "doofus" title?

BTW, when you view the guidelines, the link in the upper left that should return you to the forums gives me a 404.

Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community

[Janet H]

Thanks for the heads up - I think it's fixed now.

[Coach]

Nice job, Janet.

Coach

[bright eyed]

Tee hee, there's a minor error here:

"political discussions on health insurance can be on the health insurance forum"

[Janet H]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed Tee hee, there's a minor error here: "political discussions on health insurance can be on the health insurance forum"

Seems as though no matter how many times you read something..... I made the change you pointed out. Thanks.

[CuppaJoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I find the admonishment to stay strictly on-topic very much at odds with how the forun is now and how it has been historically. I suggest you strike that dictum entirely from the rules. Threads here quite successfully meander off and sometimes back on topic and usually the conversation is more interesting for it.

Love your new Avatar, Brew! But I can't stand it, what was the old one? It was one of those things I could almost place. (Sorry for the digression).

I would love to see, maybe, four conversations going on at once with poster's linking off of any previous post, very dynamic. This works fine for those of us who read chronologically.