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

This thread is already sticky, so you should be set.

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

Ok, now I am really confused. Is abil_uk making an actual point on a thread he hadn't realised he shouldn't (akin to using a pogo stick in an anti-personnel minefield) or being nice enough to give us the first test case for the new policy?

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

Not sure I agree/understand the point of Permanent Banning and disallowing multiple accounts.

Permanent Banning is never permanent. Its so easy to get around an IP ban its laughable. Furthermore, at some point that member might change their mind and come back to be a useful contributer.

Secondly, maybe I want to have a personal account for myself and a second account to represent a company I am authorized to represent. Or a second account just to use for any purpose that I don't want to be associated with my personal one.

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

I believe that has been answered :) http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=43

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

Ehh not really. I was considering those as two separate issues.

Permanent Banning as a system for dealing with forum abusers isn't something I see as ideal.

According to the infractions there is a 20 point penalty simply for making a second account. Sure Reggie said its ok in some situations, but then why is it in the list of infractions? And why is there a separate list of infractions and rules where some rules appear as infractions but some infractions don't appear as rules. Whats the difference?

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

"No Referral Links Allowed?"

does this mean I can no longer put external links for a source? :D

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

Referral links in this case means posting a link with a referral code that aims to solicit clicks / sales to earn profit.

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

That post was in response to the scenario that Helmuth mentioned in this post:
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=38
Sounds similar, no?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

:D

But seriously, I believe that rule is reference to for-profit linking. Right? if so it sounds perfectly reasonable.

Edit: Reggie answered while I was typing.

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

I just gave my honest opinion which surely i am entitled to do ! and as i also praised this forum for being here and never made any rude comments why do you feel the need to even comment in the way you did?.
Please dont prove me right aye because i want more than anything for good fair rules to settle this community to a good standard of pleasurable reading and that starts from the top down.... Reggie and his team.

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

i hope this will be my last question:

"Infraction points accumulate / stack-up as well as expire. Misbehaving members accumulate infraction points and, depending on the total number the member has accumulated in a month, he/she can be banned for 1, 3, 7 or 30 days, or even forever. If a member is not permanently banned, infraction points expire within 30 days -- a member with 10 infraction points will be clean of infractions if he/she behaves for a month."


if example, I violated rules which total of 30 points, and then i am suspended for 3 days. when my account is again active, i still have 30 days before the points expire.

but i misbehave again before 30 days and fined for 10 points so does that gives me a total of 40 points and again suspended but for 7 days?

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

What do you suggest as ideal? I've dealt with a handful of such members on my 10 years of running forums. Some become creative -- changing proxies, running IP randomizers, etc, etc. In this case, if the member has found an IP that is not logged in the spammer global database that TMO uses, then mods and admins just continue with their tasks of coordinating and banning -- the staff are persistent as well.

Again that infraction rule is for members who have infractions or banned and creating new accounts.

You have 27 days not 30 but yes, you got it. ;)

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

:D I missed the 3 day ban. thanks

i need to be careful now, the keyboard or the tactile qwerty keypad of the n900 might get me banned.

i will read further when at home. i hope that this thread is not that big yet :D

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

Some moderators just want a "legal" way to "kick ban" (irc jargon) users that they now feel they cant touch in a clear manner. Problem with this will always be; someone agrees and others don't.

I think, this forum wouldn't even have this thread if it wasn't for all the problems and never answered questions regarding Nokia and the N900 (and others)

The real question as I see it, should this community try to silent the crowds or fwd. the real issues to Nokia, so the crowd would be happy.

Yes I know, some will call this post off topic, others wont. I don't.

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

Afternoon. Not had a chance to read all the way through this yet, but these two bits caught my eye:

Says who?

Well, not much consideration by the Maemo Community Council as a) we'd not have a typo (bunch of pedants that we are), and the first I hear about this laudible effort is in a link fpp posts from another thread.

Not suggesting that you haven't been talking to council members, but it seems a bit like this has been sprung out of thin air (it seems remarkably complete), gets a deadline stamped on it and "our name" used to sell it.

I don't want to overreact, but perhaps - if nothing else - an email to council@maemo.org would've been a good idea to say "hey guys, can I have your support for this draft; I've been working on it with X, Y and Z". Perhaps a wiki document would be the best place to draft them, anyway?

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

Note that NOTHING has been implemented yet. This thread was created to discuss the draft and have everyone talk about it. The inclusion of the council was added there as something to be part of the document when it's all approved.

Yes it should have been created in the wiki so everyone would have access to improve it.

Btw, all members of the council have access to the private Staff and Moderators forum where this has been preliminarily discussed.

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

then why we already got infraction points? and do they stand?.

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

Some users want to do x and y. How do you know what moderators want? Rules give quite reasonable framework for giving points and banning users. There will be human factor involved. And actually regarding your comments about democracy you probably agree that if we gave community collectively the power to kick ban the result would be quite catastrophic :| Probably quite many users would get kick ban pretty fast.

What? Why should maemo community be responsible on questions considering Nokia' s situation?

It has always been "issue" that people think this is Nokia's support forum. I have at least recently tried to put links to Nokia's support forums on my threads where i help people. Maybe links to right side under toolbar to point users to that direction would be good move.

Semi off topic, but i do not follow you completely here.

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

I'm sorry. I haven't been following this thread closely. But how do you know if you have infraction points?

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

That was the original plan mentioned in the moderator/council subforum.

As Reggie mentioned, it was a forward-looking statement about the final document, not the draft as first proposed. It's the purpose of this thread to make it true.

I eliminated a lot of typos and grammar issues in my revision of it but obviously missed a couple things. Working on it in the wiki is a good idea. Feel free to set up the page!

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

I don't see any infractions tab on mine. I think someone should ask for a sample infraction and do a 'feature unboxing' review complete with screenshots for us, the curious mass :D

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

You're absolutely right. And here I thought I had read this thread completely. Apparently I missed a page.

Still, the BAD behavior should be what the infraction is, not the misuse of an ability. So the infraction should really be worded "Creating additional accounts with the intention of avoiding existing infraction penalties". Then it would be clear what the bad behavior was and the user's rights would be clearly defined. Its downright poor practice to blanket ban an activity and then ALLOW on a case by case basis exceptions to it.

I mentioned this idea here on the second page (link) but basically have new members be given a "mentor" who would approve and provide constructive criticism to new posters. The mentors would be chosen similar to how moderators are chosen. Then a user's account can be banned for 3/6/9/12 month periods in addition to the other shorter periods, but no longer. Even 3 months should be enough for a troll to either forget about this place or have a change of heart. If he doesn't, you can still permaban his account as a last resort.

This way, someone with an account that has been suspended for any length of time, who wants to make a second account to continue their misbehavior still has to deal with the mentor, who will of course disapprove of all their posts.

This accomplishes two things with one stone: A subjectively better approach to dealing with disruption, and a system for introducing and preparing new members to be constructive members.

Just thoughts I had.

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

Now this i will never agree with and i fail to understand your logic entirely.
This forum is all about Nokia devices, their problems in every respect and people come here to get the answers they dont get from Nokia or the manual that comes with the device.

I think it is wrong and even crazy to suggest this is not a support forum and as the main content of talk is support for Nokia devices how on earth can you say it is not a support forum for Nokia official or not.

This forum has the answers that even Nokia dont have do you know this? and the very reason why it is soo popular in the world !!.

Come on guys please please be reasonable here and at least see this for what it is, and maybe it should have a name change as Meamo is now Meego?.

ps sorry off topic.

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

@abill: there are structures behind what's cosmetically apparent from the outside.

If you see a coffee house nearby a theater where the actors tend to gather, you don't relabel it as the actor's guild just by that occurrence. You've to see who owns the coffee house and whether the actor's guild are even interested to base their operation there.

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

@abill
To some extent people give support here. BUT it's not because we are obligated to give it or that we advertise it or Nokia says that this is support forum. NO. If people choose to give support here (like me) it's just individuals choice to do it. I will not give any vote to idea that this forum would market itself as support place to maemo/meego device owners. This is mainly talk area for 3rd party devels and users.

And about name change. IMO Maemo will probably stay maemo for some time. There might be new community website driven towards meego platform where maemo.org will be integrated after some time. Actually do we already have here meego talk area?

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

IMO this forum is becoming a legend for getting the answers to almost any problem and unless in the unlikely event support is banned lol, the members are just too nice on the whole not to help and lets face it we got some of the most inteligent and experianced people around as members so really it should be proud of the unconditional support it actually gives.

As for a name change it was just a thought.

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

All of these rules: what happened to freedom of speech?

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

Thanks for the compliment, but your fear will never become reality.

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

Changed. Thanks.

Regarding permanent bans, if you take a look at it, members don't really get banned permanently. They actually just get banned for a maximum of 30 days.

Permanent bans will rarely happen and is reserved for spambots or for those who probably really ask for it and accumulate 100 points in a month.

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

@abill
Support banned...whaat?

Did you read first post?
"For comments, complaints and suggestions concerning Nokia or its policies, please visit the official Nokia forums: Nokia Europe, and Nokia USA."

Problem here is that support is given many times fast but then it starts to drivel away from resolution. Quite often it's when the answer is regarded as not good enough (workaround) and then OP or other users starts to complain about Nokia's policies. I have been guilty on that bashing and i admit that it's stupid stupid stupid and kills creativity and whole purpose of this place.

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

That is contradictory and should be re-worded as it says nothing about the actual word support.

Yes i agree with you on the latter but lets face it, is it our fault the inexperianced cannot understand enough to get past the advice?
You will never ever be put down for trying to help or support someone ! so never need to feel guilt.

We better get back on topic or we might get banned ha ha.

PS Texy your ok you know !.

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

It is there. You can still say whatever you want. Aside of not getting political/religious or too personal on anyone, the subjects, or individual opinions, are not really limited. Just the form of expression is to be watched.

Freedom of speech seems to be commonly misunderstood (on purpose?) as freedom from responsibility. Which is why it doesn't go well with anonymity/pseudonymity IMHO.

Remember kids: "With great power comes great responsibility".


On another topic, let me be the first to ask if the name of the standard Unix filesystem check utility is considered as filter avoidance? =)

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

This is a tired old refrain. Protection of speech is provided by governments, not talk forums. Pure freedom of speech in a forum leads to anarchy and chaos. Nothing productive could be accomplished.

That said, this forum is highly tolerant.

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

Can I poke 'im in the eye if he says "freedom of speech" again, Sam? Can I? Can I? :)

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

That and people don't seem to get that freedom of speech is usually only guaranteed in public spaces. I can't go into your house and start screaming and insulting everybody. Why do you think you can do it on a forum?

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

Wow, its actually cool to see that change and know i had a hand in it.

I hope my post wasn't interpreted to have a hostile intent. I was merely discussing those things.

In the interests of further discussion, I would still like to see "infractions" and "rules" brought together under one section.

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

I second this.

I think it should be ordered

1. Intro/"Preamble"
2. Forum Rules
3. Infractions and Banning
4. Moderation
5. Avatars
6. Signatures
7. maemo.org ToC/PP
8. Addenda

Also might want to correct this:

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

Does the rule about not posting illegal content mean we must not talk details about reverse engineering when the position is uncertain?

Thanks

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

That depends doesn't it? Afaik (and IANAL) reverse engineering was ruled ok in the USA. Not sure in the EU.

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

Those rules are too strict and do not adress any problem except that of some people that have gotten tired of viewing "the same useless threads". Yet they jump in each time and make sure to mention how useless the thread is, even if some guys there have a civilized conversation.
Moreover, all those terms such as trolling and flamebaiting are pretty vague and each one can interpret them in his own way. Finally deleting posts for "any reason" and banning conversation about deleted content is unacceptable.
Just consider the possible abuse of this, especially in a public dispute.
________
Vaporizerinfo.Com

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

I disagree. The moderation on this forum has been so tolerant of trolling, flamebaiting and repetition that the signal to noise ratio has reached ridiculous levels. Personally, I used to spend a lot more time here in the past until I started getting fed up of the tired old threads, same attacks, trolling and misdirected anger at the community for perceived ills that Nokia bore the disgruntled newcomers (well, relative to me - I am a n00b also, I'd say). And while I probably don't (cannot?) contribute much to the community here, there are many more people who are much more important than I that have felt the same - or worse...

Two posts addressing this:
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...8&postcount=72
and
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=112