Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Asperger's Online Test [was: Re: apology]
RE: Asperger's Online Test [was: Re: apology]
From: Christopher Woods <christof_at_infinitus.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:55:43 +0100
> 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 follow along.
My logic was this:
1) Make the forum etiquette, particularly regarding posting order, even more
obvious when a user is signing up.
2) Having done that, you make an etiquette *sub*forum for discussion of this
3) You can then refer list members who contravene a rule to the forum sticky
and give them their sole warning
Hopefully, as a result, unnecessary and repetitive discussion around this
topic reduces, because
1) people who DO wish to discuss this will go to the forum, register, and
have a sensible discussion
2) people who would've otherwise just sent a quickfire response back to the
entire list without thinking about it won't do so (or if they do, they'll be
booted off the list)
This reduces the offtopic list discussion by default, and ensures that only
people who can genuinely be bothered to sensibly discuss this subject will
register on the forums to do so.
> 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."
If you encourage everyone to point out a newbie's error, chances are they
may not contribute again because they've been put off by a bombardment of
"you did a bad thing" style emails. Whereas if there's rules which they're
made painfully aware of prior to signing up, and they have one or two
strikes before being booted off the list (which they *can* join again if
they really want to), I think that'd make more sense.
People are like pack animals to an extent. They behave better when a ruleset
is srictly laid out and made 100% obvious to them prior to their
participation. By contrast, I think most people wouldn't change their
behaviour as quickly if they were advised by their peers that they weren't
adhering to what essentially might as well just be an unwritten rule.
Of course, the etiquette is already written down. But is it as obvious as it
needs to be? Most people just agree to anything when they sign up without
actually reading it - it's no excuse for not following the rules, but you
have to expect that people won't read any rules, and if a rule about posting
order is buried in some paragraphs about list etiquette which itself is
hidden away in a big long page, most people aren't going to even see it let
alone read it, are they?
My opinion on this is that you remove any ambiguity prior to signup, and
create a separate discussion area to channel talk by those who feel the need
to discuss this, and the offtopic noise dissipates from the list. Problem
Received on 2009-07-15