I don't really need to go into much detail with a reply, because rally and others have so eloquently expressed my feelings already.
I don't see any need for a change in the sub-title. I don't think it will have any impact on what gets posted by who.
The sub-title was changed about a year ago in an attempt to be more inclusive of all general science and astronomy topics, including space missions etc.
The forum has seen an increase in activity since then which is good - it's ticking along nicely. Sometimes we get some 'interesting' types with hidden agendas, but all in all, threads come and go.
What's interesting will live a full and happy life, and what's silly will have no interest from anyone. When a topic gets 'spammy' or isn't suitable for that forum, it's moved to general chat, or the spam posts are removed.
And obviously, what turns out to be heated with personal attacks, will be locked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
These discussions can't go on forever. The definition of 'game over' needs to be clearer. When the moderators make this call, I am really questioning the basis on which these calls are made, particularly when it comes on the basis of content. Please also note I'm not trying to pick on the mods. I am also trying to make a contribution to IIS, which I hope, is seen as constructive.
<snip>
Where is the timeout ? What is the criteria ? This is the issue.
I feel we should all know what the criteria are. And what is the reason underpinning it ? What principles underpin it ?
|
Sorry Andrew, but things are never as black and white as you want them. The rules will never be able to be defined in such a way that all scenarios are covered by an all-encompassing rule-set (or forum sub-title!).
There are always many shades of grey in the world, and particularly in forum moderation. The T&C's are guidelines, not black and white rules. I'm sure we've had this discussion before.