Christopher Woods wrote:
> its link could
> point to a locked forum thread explaining why and highlighting the etiquette
> they must abide by.
How is a locked forum thread better than a static page just showing the
rules - you can't discuss on either.
> Further threads could be opened to discuss this -
> perhaps in their own dedicated Rockbox Discussion Etiquette subforum.
Cluttering the "new posts" page for thousands of forum members who have
no interest in this at all, to save the mailing list members (who number
far less) who have no interest in this. Why not chime in sooner when
there's a problem user and help resolve it by reinforcing that the
community recognizes these guidelines too, and the user should really
> That's why I think a forum URL would serve this purpose better than a static
> archive thread link, which would necessitate further emails to the list to
> discuss down the line (whereas you can effectively corral discussion on this
> topic in just one topic, and dip into it as you see fit).
You really expect people who *object* to the rules to sign up for the
forums to post there, rather than voicing their objections here where
they don't need to do any extra work?
> And it would segregate talk about the list and talk of the list, allowing
> the volume to decrease and relevancy to increase once again :)
Trying to make people go through extra work just to find out they're
doing something wrong, and why, isn't going to make them more inclined
to follow the rules. Why not encourage the community to be proactive in
its making new people aware that they're expected to be followed, so
rather than it always being "one or two moderators against a couple loud
dissenting voices" it quickly becomes "everyone who knows how this will
go in the end against a few loud dissenting voices" and the issues can
just resolve more quickly with people seeing "look, this is the way it
works, please just deal with it."
Received on 2009-07-14