Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

There's an "Infractions" tab on the user profile page. I'm not sure if it appears when the user has no infraction points for those without mod privileges, but that's where you would look

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I don't see anything in that post that's not covered in the proposed policy. Do you have any concrete, specific suggestions for changes?

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

You should be fine. It only becomes an issue when members with infractions or banned members start creating new accounts, thus:

"If a member who has accumulated infraction points is proved to be posting on a second account (via IP address), the account with a higher number of posts will get the additional infraction, and the newer account will be banned permanently."


The rules apply to everyone, including moderators: "If you have any problems with any of the staff, please PM or email the Administrator(s). "

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Oh no it isn't, unfortunately, and you've hit the nail right on the head there.

This is not (only) the unruly mob of clueless newcomers swamping the forums after a mildly successful new device hits the market, and getting on the old-timers' nerves.

We already saw that on ITT when the N810 came out, and survived. How ? Mostly because the core hackers sat tight, and there was still a lot of good content around, even if you had to look for it. It was also a time of doubt (yes, already) about Nokia and the future of Maemo, but community Nokians (qgil et al) stepped in and gave a hand.

What we're seeing here is yet more times of doubt, about the future of the N900, Maemo, Harmattan, Meego and whatnot.

Only this time the community Nokians are silent (or busy over at Meego.com), and increasing numbers of core community members are nowhere to be seen. Maybe finally disheartened by yet another round of fine hardware with eternally unfinished software, corporate turnarounds and broken promises. Or maybe they just don't know what to think (and post) any more.

I don't disagree with Flandry's proposal at all, after all it's just basic forum management like everywhere else, even if we didn't really need it before. However I don't believe it will do much good: if the forums are drowning in drivel it's mostly because there aren't enough people left with interesting things to say.

And that's not the newbies' fault.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Just edited my signature to comply with the new signature size rule :)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

In conjunction with Hemuth's and b-man's posts: How are you going to go about people who unintentionally already broke the not-really-offensive rules simply because those rules did not apply until now?

While you're comforting Helmut right now, let's face it: All of us know the overzealous kind of moderator that will follow the rules to the point, so can we expect a mass-banning sometime in the future because people who've had a second account for years suddenly are considered rule-breakers?

And what about people who've had a 6-line-signature ever since they joined and who don't even KNOW they are breaking the rules now?

Why make those rules, anyway? Someone having a second account (not just for spamming and flaming) doesn't hurt the community at all. And I've seen signatures twice as long with lots of (useful!) information in them that did not break the flow of a topic in the least. Unless someone feels like putting three hyperactive GIFs in their signature (which, btw, would be well within the new rules), I don't see any harm in those.

Wouldn't it be sufficient to keep the common sense rules in there (no flaming, no spamming, no warez and so on) while keeping the rest to "don't try to annoy other members"? I know those additional rules are found on a lot of other forums, but that doesn't make them sensible in the least - and especially on a forum like this I think they might actually hurt since they target a lot of "useful" members instead of getting rid of the flamers.

Thanks for that - I began to feel uncomfortably unwelcome already thanks to some replies here in this thread. Not sure where people get the idea that nobody who recently joined has common sense and something useful to say. ;)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Cmon guys, the mods won't turn into monsters overnight..
And these rules are made to protect 'us' anyway..

I'm sure there'll be some reasonable grace period for this to take into full effect and friendly reminders/warnings for unintentional rule breaking.

....right?

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I would like to make an example. Please do be honest when you judge. I have read this thread. What would if these thoughts and or policies gets implemented, what would be my punishment for posting these posts.

-------

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...1&postcount=22

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...4&postcount=23

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

inidrog,
I have made similar posts and IF i were moderator i would have gave myself couple of times week bans for just pure trolling.

So about those posts. I would say pretty much they are trolling because they are off topic and not specifically giving nothing to that topic. If they were posted to off topic they pretty much would be okey. This is just my opinion :)

So IMO warning and couple of points from those.(even tough i agree/sympathise on some level with those posts)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Proposed addition:

• No Abuse, Insults or Personal Attacks
  Abuse, insults and personal attacks directed at any member, person, or group are unacceptable. If you disagree with someone on some point, please do not resort to name calling or personal attacks; instead, argue the merits of their points. Please note that attacking people you perceive to be "trolls", "fanbois" or "flame baiters" still counts as a personal attack, and your posts will be removed as such.
  
  • Trolling example: "Just sell your N900 and get an iPhone 4!"
  • Flaming example: "Members with nothing to say should just shut up and leave this forum!"
  • Personal attack example: "You are an idiot."
  If you have trouble refraining from taking "bait", consider making use of the built-in ignore list functionality.
  
• No Foul Language

Any objections?

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

None here; I think it would be a good idea to have a reminder, maybe more people would use it. Maybe we should also need to add something about not quoting trolls or the bait? Only partially joking.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I will wait eagerly for the outcome of this thread. !

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I like the policy... I think it provides a pretty reasonable warning window, and the lower-end "punishments" (account posting privs disabled for a day to a week) are reasonable.

I also like the idea about preventing someone for posting multiple times in a row to the same thread. I think that would be a nice way to encourage clean usage. I would recommend if that happens though at there be an option to "bump" the thread on an edit.

I think it's worth trying it out for a week or two and seeing how it goes, then re-opening the discussion to see how people like the new policy. I'm sure there will be a few adjustments and things will again go smoothly.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Been there, seen that.

Once a community grows large enough that the administrators run out of close buddies to assign as moderators, the zealots will automatically come.

And that's not even a bad thing, as long as the rules are sensible, because as long as they only target the bad boys, zealots will help clear a forum of them.

But once again, I don't see how some of those rules are protecting "us" in any way. Have you really ever come across a signature that you felt the need of being protected from? :D

Really, some of those rules feel like they've been C&Ped from other forums without any real reason to be installed on TMO.

I'm pretty sure these won't hit us any time soon, really. But once they do, they might hit us hard.

Imagine you're getting punished for publishing 6 lines of HELPFUL links in your signature, something that was considered okay for 5 years. Would you feel hurt? Would you consider not only deleting those links form your signature, but also turning your back on a community that, instead of getting rid of real offenders, is now targeting at you for being HELPFUL?

:D

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Is it OK to thank someone for opening their mind "for a useful post" even if you don't agree with the content?, or is a "Thanks!" = I agree?

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Right now I feel like I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I really wonder: What harm does replying to a thread more than once? Normally, one only does that when adding something after a certain span of time, anyway - and from your words I read that you already realise that loosing the "bump" functionality would indeed be a big disadvantage.

So where would be the advantage of implementing a complicated bump-on-edit system compared to someone simply being allowed to reply even if the last post was made by themselves?

Again this seems to be C&Ped from other forums where it actually might make sense (for example because of people artificially raising their post count for added benefits).

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Reggie has said that's only a problem when you've started to get infractions. If you're clean, it shouldn't be a problem.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I guess i need to add this to the OP as it has already been ignored:

Regarding serial posting, i added that language to the No Spamming portion, which reads like this:

Threads that are not related to the forum's description, posts that are not related to the discussion, or posts made with the intention of bringing the user's post count up will be considered to be spam. An edit function is provided by the forum software and should be used to minimize multiple sequential posts.

Seems to me that the moderators are not the ones taking rules to extremes that weren't intended, but the ones responding to them. :D

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Not sure if I left my thumb between the hammer and the nail :)

No it's not their fault. I just think this increased popularity causes the need for more stricter moderation. Just to keep everyone a happy camper and not loose too much of the older crowd.

Change always causes resistance. It has to - it's physics.
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction."
- Newton's 3rd law of motion

Can't argue with physics :)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I'll willingly break the rules to make a second account once I've been banned by any future moderators - just so I can PM you a big fat "Haha!" then... :D

Really, I see where you're coming from, and I don't think any of you are zealots - but can you voucher for the future moderators? I have just seen too many communities grow since the 90th to believe that you will be able to keep the moderators at the current level.

Keep the rules clean from unnecessary rules now and you won't have an angry mob of users later.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

>> Trolling example: "Just sell your N900 and get an iPhone 4!"

I find this definition of "trolling" hilarious, because Nokia's misrepresentation of the n900 in its advertising is the leading cause of disappointed ppl with differing expectations coming to this place and venting. If a user bought the n900 expecting lots of apps in the Ovi store, or expected the phone to "just work" or expected active Nokia support with frequent patches to correct bugs and they do NOT care about hacking/tinkering/modifying their phone or even know what open source is, then they will be disappointed with their purchase - no amount of community support can resolve these mismatched expectations because these issues are not something the community can resolve.

In these cases, the appropriate solution IS for such users to sell their n900 and buy another phone, as their expectations have to be matched by the correct product. In this case might as well do it sooner rather then later while the n900 can still be sold for a good price.

If this is defined as "trolling", well it seems denial of reality is the new official norm here then.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I think this thread should be read from A-Z again by every contributor and reader of "this" thread before... any new rules are implemented. Will the rules be implemented for "fan-boys" "longtime known friends/members" or only the ones "moderators" don't like?

SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras.
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...highlight=Sio2



Just trying to help, steer away from deeper problems.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

On the flipside, with this policy in place, the obvious trolls can be weeded out so they've no reason to stay for long.

I think the anti-spam is pretty obvious and no one will seriously mind cutting down their 5> lines sig anyway. You want to read more content than sig on a thread.

What I meant that we could use some assistance (in the form of policy or moderation) were against obvious trolls, flamers or those who debate aggressively and forget about common courtesy.

Maybe they can be summarized into a sticky thread, with a sig that points to that thread instead?
Again, imagine chatting with someone on a thread with long sig and short replies.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

@ysss: I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. I'm not against the new policy at all, I just think that it should be reduced to those rules that actually help getting rid of trolls.

Instead there's a whole lot of rules that don't make sense and will most probably lead to problems later on, because it's not trolls that will be breaking those rules but most probably rather viable members.

And once again: I've never run into a signature that was longer than the post it accompanied, simply because most people who have long signatures won't post 1-sentence-turbo-replies. I haven't seen a single harmful signature so far, but I HAVE seen long signatures that had a lot of value in them.

But, whatever, just stating my concerns. I myself couldn't care less - if I get banned in a couple of months because an overzealous moderator thinks I'm Satan himself for bringing back a thread from the void of the second page, may it be. There's other communities that I can develop for and other people that may answer questions once I'm banned. ;)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

@Nathraiben:
Ok, I can understand that concern.

Personally, I tend to trust the people behind the rules. They've done a great job so far and I've seen instances where negative exchange go longer than necessary due to (non existent\unclear?) policy regarding 'soft' spamming/trolling; It seems that they just need a clear written policy as a base to act.

I really doubt they'll start to waste their time to conduct witch hunts for people with >5 lines sigs, for example. Just when it's spotted in a thread where overpopulated by sigs than content, then people can be reminded of the written rule...

They know that developers are the real actors in this show.. moderators are the security (and uhm, ushers :D).

Let's just wait and see.. and wish them well :)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I question the blanket 'no business advertising'.

While in some cases, this would be clearly inappropriate - for example -
'BUY MY AWESOME SCREEN PROTECTORS' - in others, it might be less so.

Stuff that you cannot easily find on ebay - for example - someone making replica 'flashing' fixtures - to access the debug pads of the phone, or a higher capacity battery for example.

Especially given there is a buy/sell forum, I fail to see why this should be forbidden.

Responding to users questions on a product you make is clearly a valid use of TMO, that should be encouraged.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

If it's the topic of your thread, it's blatant trolling. If it's the end result of a long discussion, then it might not be. Context is EVERYTHING.

Of course if you absolutely hate the N900 and Nokia you might err on the side of raging against this forum and its users instead of, you know, thinking.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I'd like to join that choir, just look at Sygic and other companies engaging users on here, participating as parts of the community.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

just resized my sig.....hope this is okay

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

@ysss: I've been one of the "people behind the rules" quite a couple of times, and I know that those rules are meant to be helpful. Really, I'm not questioning the current admins and moderators, I'm just trying to save them some headache in the future, for I've also seen fellow moderators totally ruining a community with me being unable to do anything because they were just "reinforcing the rules".

Thus, one last time I just have to stress this point: Keep the rules tight, but to a necessary minimum. Be strict with the trolls, but let the rest of the bunch keep their current freedom - they'll most probably use it responsibly, anyway.

(Btw, sorry for the offtopic, but I just wanted to say that I really love reading your posts, ysss. We almost always disagree - completely :D - but you tend do so in a sensible way. Thanks for constantly reminding me of how even online people can disagree without fighting!)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

In other words or shorter: A good community should have moderators using the rules sensible, and not use rules to express their feelings or support for friends or "homeboys". I hope I understand you correctly.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Please explain.

This is one of the most tolerant forums in which I've ever participated. The policy was crafted by very tolerant people who are just looking for a way to answer the many, many requests we've had for making policy clear and having a fair and consistent approach to people who are intolerant of the concept of community.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Oh, I totally missed this part of the rules.

Clarifications for that rule would be great, as there really are quite a lot of business advertisements that are actually helping this community.

For example, I would hate missing Secret Exit's next game just because they are no longer allowed to advertise on here.

And I even think that (at least to a point and strictly confined to the competitors forum) advertisements for alternative systems and devices should be allowed, as I really think the market (and thus the community) can only flourish when people are well informed about all the possible choices they have.

So it would be really nice to not ban advertisements in general. If we must have that rule at all, just please make it so that announcing (commercial) releases of Maemo software won't be breaking the rules. ;)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Tolerant to a fault, I'd say :)

Agree. A distinction between ad spamming/commercial sock puppets/astroturfing on the one hand and legitimate informational threads/posts would be nice.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Moderator assignments have not been about "close buddies". In fact, we've had people volunteer and were seconded by others, as well as many who were nominated by community members.

If anything, the admin (Reggie) may well be pathologically opposed to a simple "hey buddy wanna be a mod?" approach, based on the history of that subject here (for a very long time we had ZERO moderators).

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

@Nathraiben:
Yes, I can see that we want the exact same outcome in this case (sensible moderation), just with two polar concerns (mods use common sense to extend their reach outside of the core rule vs mods use common sense to exercise only the necessary parts of the extensive rules) :D

At any rate, we've put out our concerns out there and hopefully it gets some consideration..

(Btw, thanks a lot! I share that too :D)

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

Mh, not really.

Of course the ideal community would have only moderators that use the rules (or, rather guidelines) in a sensible way - and right now that seems to be working quite well.

But with a community growing, there'll inevitably come a time when there will moderators who can't/won't do that and want/have to follow the rules to the last letter. And that's the time when insensible rules (that originally were just meant as a general guideline against serious offenders) will start hurting the community.

I hope that cleared it up. I know that's far from short, but I'm having a hard time expressing my thoughts - just blame it on the language barrier. ;)

I think you got me wrong - I wasn't using "close buddy" as an insult, on the contrary: normally, a community works best when the administrator(s) personally know the moderators, because then they know how responsible they are - and if they ever happen to misbehave (all of us do from time to time :D ), they can just easily reproach them.

If that's not the system you were using so far and still only spawned great moderators this way, that's actually really honouring this community. Normally your best bet for finding a good moderator is to NOT use those who volunteer... :D

Just not sure this will keep working - again, with a community growing (no matter whether it's a forum, a club or a company), you're bound to attract less reasonable people.

But again, don't mind me (don't want to come off as pestering) - I've stated my concerns, you've made it clear that you don't believe those concerns will come true and I've replied that I don't really care. The good thing about NOT being a moderator is that you can just leave once things are getting out of hand. :D

We've totally agreed TWICE now in this thread. Next time the world will come to an end... ;)

True, and I'm shutting up now. I know I'm talking too much when I don't really care, but I just don't want people to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Stupid language, maybe I should just refrain from posting in English communities. :D

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

I don't like this rule. For example I would not know about the laser cut stand for n900, which is really realy nice, if this rule would have been here. And as others have pointed out software companies with their producst (games, map applications, webbrowers etc.) should be allowed. Maybe to restring commercial stuff to its own subforum or something like that.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

You know this is all nonsense from start to finish and i will tell you why.....
Nokia is turning out to be a money making machine and has a very careless attitude towards support which is slowly but surely getting worse.

This forum stinks of Nokia and is a magnet for everyone that has got a grudge against Nokia so is bound to attract negative talk and gripes which in turn lead to arguments on here from the fanboys.

Moderators have mates on here and when you get used to this forum it shows a mile what the mods are all about in general and that is always in allegiance with there buddies and to hell with anyone that dare even speak out of turn to the buddies of the mods.

The whole forum will depend very much on the Nokia treatment of support which at the moment kind of stinks in many ways, and that means if Nokia screw up then the magnet turns on bringing people straight to this forum.

I disagree with some of the rules on here because it is all arse about face as there should be a section for moaning that can be left to rot uncensored by mods seperate to the main "support" part of this forum.

I myself have already got infraction points all because a moderator and his bussom pal set me up little realising i was on the verge of explaining a crucial mod to overclocking that never got the light of day and now they have rather shot themselves in the foot because i am reluctant to give any of my modifications to this forum when it is run by moderators that are loyal only to there buddies, to hell with everyone else if they even talk something they dont agree with.

You lot can all fester in your wonderful forum but the truth of the matter is your always going to have problems on here simply because of Nokia.

I actually have a life outside of the N900 and this forum but unfortunatly many members on here especially fanboys live on here 24/7 and that is so sad but if they want to waste there lives away so be it i wont stop them.

Moderating IMO on this forum is all wrong as far too much "loyalty" to there bussom pals exsist on here and that alone will drive the real supportive people away from it.
I am one of the supportive people but i am dammed if i will tolerate bad moderation.

Texrat joked with me a little while ago "bad talk of Nokia gets a weeks ban" and as a mod he is IMO the best on here but his joke may well become reality... scary thought aye.

Anyhow i do hope a happy medium can be reached between the Mods n Rockers of this forum because if not it is doomed.

My honest thoughts for once and i said all this without contempt or ill feeling towards anyone on here but i do feel many hide behind walls and sneak out just to create mayhem knowing they have moderators to back them up.

Anyhow lets hope and pray Nokia come into our lives with the support we all need which at the moment is missing, boy oh boy we need this forum !!!.

Re: Community input for new t.m.o. policy
 

is putting a "Sticky" on this thread's title possible?

i just scanned on the "policy", haven't read it thoroughly.

Thanks......... :D